The current intended status of this document is "Standards Track", is this intentional?
Thanks, Yingzhen On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 6:04 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > This message starts a two-week adoption call for > ddraft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security, ending on August/19. From the > Abstract: > > This document discusses security considerations in SRv6 networks, > including the potential threats and the possible mitigation methods. > The document does not define any new security protocols or extensions > to existing protocols. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security/ > > > Please review the draft and consider whether you support its adoption > by the WG. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support > or opposition -- this is not a vote. > > If you are willing to provide a more in-depth review, please state it > explicitly to give the chairs an indication of the energy level in the > working group willing to work on the document. > > WG adoption is the start of the process. The fundamental question is > whether you agree the proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and > whether this draft represents a good starting point. The chairs are > particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not > authors of the document. > > Note that the IESG requested that the WG deliver a document covering > security considerations for SRv6. This document is intended to satisfy > that request. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro (for the Chairs) > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
