Hi WG, I consider the issue 1 closable. I think the multiple SRv6 Endpoint behaviors belong to a single data plane solution just like I have seen in RFC8986.
Thanks, Jingrong 本邮件及其附件可能含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments may contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:09 AM To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression As per the discussions on list and at IETF 117, the SPRING WG chairs (myself and Alvaro specifically) are attempting to determine if we can close the open issues regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ The editors have entered proposed resolutions for all open issues. This email is to determine if the working group considers issue 1 closable. Issue 1 reads: 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. The editors have entered: All SIDs of the SRv6 dataplane (defined in this document and in other documents) can co-exist in the same SRH. This make SRv6 a single, consistent dataplane solution. Please speak up if you agree this resolves this issue, or if you consider that it does not resolve the issue. Objections (and even support if practical) should be specific as to the technical grounds for the statement. Silence will not be considered consent. This call will run for 3 weeks to allow time for at least some people's August vacations and in hopes fo getting a clear reading from the WG. Separate calls for other issues will be issued on a schedule that the chairs have selected to try to balance getting sufficient focus with getting this done, as it has been a long time. Note that if the WG agrees that all issues may be marked as closed, the chairs anticipate issuing the WG last call shortly after that is determined. Speaking up early will help us in all dimensions. If we determine that not all issues can be marked as closed, the chairs will work with the document editors to determine suitable next steps. Thank you, Joel
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
