Hello Alvaro, Thank you very much for your prompt response and clearificaiton.
Regards, Zhenqiang Li China Mobile lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com From: Alvaro Retana Date: 2025-05-29 22:24 To: lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com CC: draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm.all; spring Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-18.txt On May 28, 2025 at 11:39:44 PM, lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com wrote: Zhenqiang: Hi! I'm responding to your first point from the process and documentation requirement perspective — the same answer applies to any new behavior. > 1. This doc is informational. I do not think it is appropriate to define a > new SID behavior, END.TSF, in an informational doc. New SID behavior should be > defined in a seperate doc of standard track. The SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors registry [1] has a "First Come First Served" registration policy [2], which means that anyone can register a new Behavior and there are no documentation requirements. IMHO, it is good to document the Behaviors and for the WG to discuss them -- even if not necessary -- as a step towards interoperability. In summary, new Behaviors can be defined in an RFC with any Status: STD, Informational, Experimental... The status of a WG document that defines a new Behavior can be discussed in the WG. [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml#srv6-endpoint-behaviors [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8126#autoid-19 Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
