As was mentioned in the srv6ops side meeting yesterday, I would appreciate some review and feedback from folks on this list. I know there is significant overlap with SPRING, given our conversations at 121, the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security could benefit from additional eyes on it from srv6ops. We would appreciate any review and feedback from the srv6ops and the SPRING group (apologies to those on both groups as I am sending this to both).
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-00&url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-01&difftype=--html Current draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security/ >From the SPRING meeting, I have the following: - Add reference and section detailing the use of the new locator block as described in RFC9602 - Early check in from security, noting the desire for a terminology consistency check - Improve on-path and off-path terminology Any more input would be most welcome.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
