Hi Joel and WG,
The issue has already been addressed in draft-ietf-6man-sids, I agree to close
it here.
Best Regards,
Liyan
----邮件原文----发件人：Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>收件人：SPRING WG List
<spring@ietf.org>抄 送: (无)发送时间：2023-08-16 09:30:49主题：[spring] Confirming
resolution of issue #2 ofdraft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression
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/.
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
The editors39 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
