Re: [spring] Progressing draft-ietf-spring-network-programming: Finding a compromise

Dear Ron,

I love your definition of "compromise": "You do what we tell you to do".

Is this PSP removal crusade targeted to buy more time by making PSP illegal
till undefined future ?

Compromise in my books here would be to make PSP optional - but wait as
stated already this is already optional today ! Node signals zero SIDs for
PSP and it is no longer the problem for the node.

Can you please at least one admit what real technical problem we are facing
here with PSP ?

Many thx,
R.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:43 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Folks,
>
>
>
> I think that it is time to find a compromised regarding
>  draft-ietf-spring-network-programming. How does the following sound:
>
>
>
>    - Pablo removes Section 4.16 and all references to PSP from
>     draft-ietf-spring-network-programming and puts all of that content into
>    another draft
>    - The WG progresses  draft-ietf-spring-network-programming
>    - I will produce a document that updates The Devil’s Paragraph, as
>    described in
>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Xm2RTBm-Hh_ZVUa5El4To1zopSg/..
>    The draft will allow removal of the RH, but only when Segments Left equals
>    zero and when that action was requested by the source node as in
>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cXpzCLOVQ1OOUPGU13ZNnQWDVIA/
>    ..
>    - When that draft progresses, Pablo’s PSP draft can progress
>    - Until then, vendors can ship whatever they want (since they are
>    shipping already).
>
>
>
> I would by happy to produce a first draft of the document that updates
> 8200.
>
>
>
>
>                                                                                                               Ron
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>