I strongly object to the adoption of the draft.
There are 3 different flavors defined in the draft and all three flavors have significant difference in the forwarding plane behaviours. I would prefer the discussion on whether WG wants to work on all these flavors or only one of them to precede the adoption. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 11:37 PM To: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ [External Email. Be cautious of content] Chairs, I strongly object to the adoption of this draft. I also note that this is a very strange adoption call. The WG has indicated a preference for a single forwarding plane behavior. However, bullets #1 and #4 in the Call for Adoption suggest that the WG has yet to address whether the draft satisfies its single behavior objective. If the draft does not satisfy the single behavior objective, two of the three behaviors specified in the draft will need to be removed. This is a weak starting point for a standards track RFC. Furthermore, neither this WG nor 6man has determined whether all three behaviors are compliant with RFC 4291. It seems to me that one is while the other two are not. Finally, I question the benefit of adopting this draft *before* the above mentioned questions are answered. This is not a rhetorical question. A response from the chairs would be appreciated. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of James Guichard Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 10:05 AM To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ [External Email. Be cautious of content] Dear WG: The chairs would like to express their appreciation for all the responses received to our emails with reference to how the working group wishes to move forward with respect to a solution for SRv6 compression. The apparent inclination of the working group is to use https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!W2v-jx-wb1hsj9oWxKEvtG5Ge9ul-87jmnYS74VaXS02yWsffTe6BMd8sREQndHd$> as the basis for its compression standardization work. That is part of what this email attempts to confirm. Because of the above the chairs would like to issue a 2-week WG call for adoption ending October 15th for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!W2v-jx-wb1hsj9oWxKEvtG5Ge9ul-87jmnYS74VaXS02yWsffTe6BMd8sREQndHd$> but with some clear guidelines as follows. By expressing support for adoption of this document you are fully aware of and are acknowledging that: 1. The SPRING working group is adopting a document that has multiple SRv6 Endpoint behaviors. 2. The document is a "living" document; it may change as it goes through review and analysis by the SPRING working group. 3. All open discussion points raised on our mailing list MUST be addressed BEFORE said document is allowed to progress from the working group to publication. A list of these discussion points will be documented in the WG document and maintained by the document editor in conjunction with the chairs. 4. If this document is adopted by the working group, the chairs specify as part of the adoption call that the following text describing an open issue be added to the document in the above-described open issues section: * "Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one data plane solution, and given that the document contains multiple SRv6 EndPoint behaviors that some WG members have stated are multiple data plane solutions, the working group will address whether this is valid and coherent with its one data plane solution objective.". Please consider the above guidelines as you decide on whether to support or not this WG adoption. Please express clearly your reasoning for support/non-support as well as any open discussion points you would like addressed should the document be adopted into the working group. Thanks! Jim, Bruno & Joel
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
