Dear Yingzhen and Jeff, We sincerely appreciate the review and comments provided by all participants on our draft. As co-authors, we will carefully consider the comments and work on addressing the concerns raised, particularly those related to the SRH behavior changes. Once the problems are addressed, we will consider requesting a second adoption call.
Best regards, Weiqiang From: Yingzhen Qu Date: 2024-03-06 15:05 To: Alvaro Retana CC: Huzhibo; RTGWG; rtgwg-chairs; spring-cha...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar; draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24) Hi all, Thank you for the comments and discussions. Based on the feedback, it has been determined that the draft is not adopted at this time. As discussed in the thread, the concerns raised, particularly regarding the changes to the SRH behavior, require further discussion in the 6man and spring working groups. We recommend that the authors address these issues accordingly. Once resolved, the authors may consider requesting a second adoption call if the draft remains within RTGWG. Thanks, Jeff and Yingzhen (RTGWG co-chairs) On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:19 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: On March 4, 2024 at 6:46:33 AM, Huzhibo wrote: Zhibo: Hi! ... > ----->HZB:rfc8754 or rfc8986 only defines that Processing is not changed by > this document. This is only a general description of the standard SRv6, not a > mandatory specification. rfc8754 and rfc8986 are the SRv6 specifications! Not changing the behavior by not forwarding packets that con't have a corresponding FIB entry is not a suggestion, it is the expected behavior. > ----->HZB:Of course, as you said, the new endpoint behavior defined in this > document has been posted to the Spring group discussion. Maybe I missed that, can you please point me to the thread? ... > -----> HZB :In normal operations...The specific operations of PE3 are as > follows,This section does not describe the PSP endpoint behavior, but the > VPN SID endpoint behavior.We will clarify in the next version. Note that one of the concerns is that the behavior results in some of the SIDs being skipped, its relationship to the current standards, and the issues that it may bring up. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
