Hi Alvaro, Just a clarification – I believe my comments on section 6.5 have been well documented in other threads – would you like them duplicated here for clarity?
Andrew Internal All Employees From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 2 April 2024 at 20:41 To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression) CAUTION: This email has originated from a free email service commonly used for personal email services, please be guided accordingly especially if this email is asking to click links or share information. [Moving this message up on everyone’s mailbox.] Dear WG: We have received no replies to this request. If no changes are needed to §6.5 then that is ok, but if you have a different opinion please speak up. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 28, 2024 at 8:04:30 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>) wrote: Section 6.5 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression describes the behavior when an originating node inside an SRv6 domain creates a packet with a C-SID as the final destination. This description differs from the text in Section 8.1 of RFC8200. We plan to send the draft to the 6man WG for review and explicitly highlight this difference. Please comment on the text in Section 6.5. Does anything need to be added, deleted, changed, or clarified? We want to ask for feedback soon; please send comments on this topic by April 5th. Thanks! Alvaro. -- for spring-chairs
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
