Re: [spring] Final? design team charge

Weiqiang Cheng <> Wed, 08 July 2020 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5517D3A0C7B for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QYGQONi9ivLR for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFC53A0C3A for <>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee45f05dcc7c16-72a2f; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 22:48:39 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee45f05dcc7c16-72a2f
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee45f05dcc5acf-4e89b; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 22:48:38 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee45f05dcc5acf-4e89b
From: "Weiqiang Cheng" <>
To: "'Joel Halpern'" <>, <>
Cc: "'Sander Steffann'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 22:48:38 +0800
Message-ID: <025601d65536$ddab14e0$99013ea0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdZUexjuCbdDkeH1RziPsnREar7ozAAuQYeQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Final? design team charge
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 14:49:01 -0000

Thanks a lot to Joel and other Chairs.

Hi Sanders and team,
It is very nice to work together with you all. 
It seems possible and useful to apply for an archived email list.
Let's get started.

Weiqiang Cheng

发件人: spring [] 代表 Joel Halpern
发送时间: 2020年7月8日 00:24
主题: [spring] Final? design team charge

Having gotten various volunteers, and considered what the WG needs, the 
SPRING chairs have selected the design team for clarifying the SR over 
IPv6 compression situation.

The Design team will be
Co-Chaired by:
     Cheng Weiqiang of China Mobile and
     Sanders Steffann of SJM Steffann Consultancy

The other members of the team are:
     Ron Bonica of Juniper
     Darren Dukes of Cisco
     Cheng Li of Huawei
     Peng Shaofu of ZTE
     Wim Henderickx of Nokia
     Chongfeng Xie of China Telecom

(We understand that some members may be on vacation.  We ask the chairs 
to please get the design team up and running as fast as possible, and 
deal with vacations as necessary.)

The design team is to produce (rough) consensus (of the DT) outputs to 
the WG on two related topics:
1) What are the requirements for solutions to compressing segment 
routing information for use over IPv6;
2) A comparison of proposed approaches to compressing segment routing 
information for use over IPv6.

In both cases, assertions / requirements should be explicitly explained 
and motivated.  Please do not assume that everyone has the same 
perspective or assumptions.

We expect these results to take the form of Internet Drafts.  How the 
design team does the development is up to them.  Note that while we are 
asking for I-Ds, we are not assuming that these results will be 
published as RFCs.  When the working group has progressed, we will see 
if there is agreement as to the value of long term publication of this 
Also, as a reminder to both the design team and the working group, the 
design team output is input to the working group.  It is not presumed to 
be a WG document until the WG actually adopts it.

If the design team has insights into the number of solutions (are 
several already standardized?  is there value in picking one / some?) 
this may be included in the requirements readout.  If the design team 
can not agree, or does not think it is helpful to report this aspect, 
that is also acceptable to the chairs.

While the chairs would like to see prompt work, we also want to see a 
thorough job done on this task.  As such, we value quality of result 
over time.  While there is some pressure, we ask that the design team 
focus on reaching clear and useful agreements.  Thus, we are not asking 
for any readout by IETF 108.  As a target, we would like to see a draft 
to the WG by September 15, 2020.

If the design team makes enough progress that they have questions they 
would like the WG to discuss at IETF 108, please let us know.

Bruno, Jim, and Joel

spring mailing list