Thanks Zafar. The authors will follow the recommendations of the chairs and the consensus of the group for the document type. For now, unless there is a clear directive, we can leave the intended status as-is and adjust it accordingly.
nb On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, Bruno, Joel, WG, and authors, > > > > I support the adoption call. > > However, I believe the document should be “informational.” > > > > I have a comment on the section 7.1.1: > > The Section is not specific to SRv6 compression (CSID draft). > > RFC 8754 and RFC 8986 define reduced SRH, i.e., SRH MAY be omitted when the > SRv6 Policy only contains one segment (typical for VPN Cases without TE). > > > > Thanks > > > > Regards … Zafar > > > > From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> > Date: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 11:47 AM > To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ietf.org > <draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ietf.org>, spring-cha...@ietf.org > <spring-cha...@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> > Subject: [spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security > (ends Aug/19) > > On August 7, 2024 at 3:07:12 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: > > > Hi! > > > The current intended status of this document is "Standards Track", is this > > intentional? > > Yes, it is. The document is intended to be a "companion" to the > existing documents. > > However, the status is not "written in stone": it can be changed if > the WG decides it should be something else. Do you have thoughts > about that? > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
