Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts

Hi all,
The technology difference (that I have pointed out on the IETF 117) is possible to cover properly in the common document.
Would be a small inconvenience that not all tests would be needed for both (4 against 3 in every sub-section), and would be many places "if SRv6 then ... else ...".

The bigger problem is that SR-MPLS against SRv6 is a pretty religious decision.
People that choose one (for the deployment and test) would never need to test the other one.
Hence, they have 50% of the information in the draft that they need to scroll.
The audience for SRv6 and SR-MPLA is different. These are different Carriers.

Hence, it is better to keep documents separate.
But merge is possible.

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of sbanks@encrypted.net
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 9:51 PM
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?

Good afternoon BMWG,
	At IETF 117 in San Francisco, we had a discussion around whether or not to consolidate the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - they’re currently separate. We, as a group, took an action to continue that conversation on the list, prior to calling for the adoption of either 1 (consolidated) or both drafts. To that end, I’d like to ask BMWG for their opinions here. Gabor has already weighed in (thank you Gabor!). What say the rest of us?

Thank you,

Sarah
BMWG Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - to consolidate or not?