Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-15

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 21 August 2025 16:28 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: Eliot Lear <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark@ietf.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-15
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <175579370338.1023517.12800991561854179693@dt-datatracker-d8bcd59c-frtgg>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:28:23 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: JIUOMFDXEOW6KUOSXMM3FS3ZP33AJVZV
CC: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, iana@iana.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/vkW8PH1INlI8E7OfsPXEBTjEE8o>

The IESG has completed a review of draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-15
consistent with RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Application of the Alternate
Marking Method to the Segment Routing Header'
<draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-15.txt> as an Experimental RFC.

As the responsible AD for this conflict review I have concluded that this
work is related to IETF work done in WG SPRING, but this relationship does
not prevent publishing.

I have reviewed this document and also reviewed the SPRING mailing list for
any discussion. The work presented here is experiemental and an alternative
approach to work already concluded within the IETF. The SPRING WG concluded
that they did not have consensus to adopt the work into their working group;
during discussion the working group felt that the complexity of adding
another altmark was not warranted by the claimed improvement over the IPv6
extension header altmark.  So the WG declined to undertake the effort.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark/

A URL of the reviewed Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-fz-spri… The IESG