I find this draft useful and its suggestion of a dedicated prefix would clear up some ambiguity. I think it would need to be standards track to make that prefix assignment. I think section 4.1 "Open Issues to be Addressed with C-SIDs" needs to be actioned by SPRING so that it can be removed from this draft. Similarly, I don't think section 4.2 would really belong in the final version.
Regards Brian Carpenter On 11-Feb-22 17:35, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi all, As discussed during the IETF112 6man working group meeting I have written a short draft that describes the characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and attempts to clarify the relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture [RFC4291]. Comments are welcome and greatly appreciated. Text: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-krishnan-6man-sids-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-krishnan-6man-sids-00.txt> Html: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-krishnan-6man-sids <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-krishnan-6man-sids> Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list i...@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
