Hi Joel, I believe that draft-ietf-6man-sids addresses the concerns brought up and this issue should be resolved.
Thanks Suresh > On Aug 15, 2023, at 9:30 PM, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > As mentioned earlier, we also need to confirm the resolution of issue #2 on > the subject document. > > This call will run for 1 week. Please speak up if you either support closing > this issue or see aspects that need further discussion or different > resolution. > > Issue 2 reads: > > As reminded in the conclusion of the adoption call, this document is > subject to the policy announced by the SPRING chairs in > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/ > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/>. > In particular, this means that this document can not go to WG last call > until 6man completes handling of an Internet Draft that deals with the > relationship of C-SIDs to RFC 4291. It is hoped and expected that said > resolution will be a WG last call and document approval in 6man of a > document providing for the way that C-SIDs use the IPv6 destination > address field. > The document currently being looked at for this is > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-krishnan-6man-sids > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-krishnan-6man-sids> > The editors' response reads: > > draft-ietf-6man-sids addresses this issue and it has been WG Last Called by > 6man. > > Thank you, > > Joel > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
