Thanks a lot for your comments Acee. Agree about point 2. and will make a change. Regarding 1. the registry does not require a standards track doc for an allocation. There have been some discussions on the track as well earlier, and this can be changed if the WG feels that it is the right thing to do.
Regards Suresh On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:02 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Jen, Coauthors, et al, > > I have read this document and support publication. The document contains > useful information and can hopefully be reference to avoid rehashing the > relationship between IPv6 Addressing Architecture and SRv6 SIDs. I have two > comments. > > 1. Since this document has an IANA allocation, should it be Standards > Track? > 2. I think the Security Considerations should reference the discussion > in section 5 regarding the scope of SRv6 SIDs. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 9/17/22, 4:02 AM, "spring on behalf of Jen Linkova" < > spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of furr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > This email starts the 6man Working Group Last Call for the "Segment > Identifiers in SRv6" draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids). > > The WGLC ends on Tue, Oct 4, 23:59:59 UTC. > > As the document is closely related to the work in the SPRING WG, we'd > like the SPRING WG to review the document and discuss the following > questions: > > - the action items required from SPRING (Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the > draft, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4) > [*]. Would it make sense to merge those open issues with the 'Open > Issues' section of > the SPRING document? > - whether the document needs more guidance regarding routability of > /16 or such requirements shall belong to some other document? In > particular, shall we specify that it MUST NOT be in the DFZ? Or > setting 'Globally Reachable = false' in the registry should be > sufficient? The current idea is that the prefix needs to fail closed > and not be routable by default. > > [*] The draft currently refers to the individual submission instead of > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > - the link will be updated in the next revision. > > Please review the draft and send your comments to the list/ > > -- > SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
