On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 8:47 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.] > I get that but it is still confusing (may be due to the long sentence). However, as it is part of the current charter then I am assuming the charis and ADs know how to handle the working group scope. That means we might actually have a better description. > > > > 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 see, this should at least be clear in the charter then. > > I may have been looking at the charter too long, so I would appreciate > text suggestions on how to make the point clearer. > I think the following would be helpful to understand the intention better . it's a suggestion only and should depict what I am after, free to amend/reject. -- The SPRING WG is responsible for protocol-independent general architecture or framework work. The protocol specific modification of, or extension to the existing architecture, data planes, or control or management plane protocols should be carried out in the WGs responsible for the same. Those work would be benefited by coordinating with the spring working group, if necessary, those work can be carried out in the SPRING WG after agreement with all the relevant WGs chairs and responsible ADs. -- //Zahed > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
