On November 21, 2024 at 5:47:00 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote:
Zahed: Hi! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Roman's and Gunter's block, I think those are good points that needs > clarifiction. > > I have blocking comment as I am trying to understand the part I copied here, > what it says, but I am getting confused on what should be done in spring and > what should be done in other working groups and how that should be decided > > --Any modification of -or extension to- existing > architectures, data planes, or control or management plane protocols > should be carried out in the WGs responsible for the architecture, > data plane, or control or management plane protocol being modified > and in coordination with the SPRING WG, but may be done in SPRING WG > after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area > Directors. -- [Note that this text is the same as in the current charter.] > If the responsible working group should carry out the work, then why do they > need to bring that work in spring? This should be explicitly mentioned > otherwise it would create confusions in future to decide what should be done > where. Most of the spring-related work has two parts: the general architecture or framework (which is protocol-independent) and the protocol-specific extensions. For example, rfc8986 describes SRv6, so it is a product of spring -- but the specific extensions to make it work have been done in other WGs, including rfc8754 (SRH/6man), rfc9513 (OSPFv3 extensions/lsr), rfc9352 (IS-IS extensions/lsr), etc. IOW, the spring WG is responsible for the protocol-independent pieces. I may have been looking at the charter too long, so I would appreciate text suggestions on how to make the point clearer. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
