Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6
From: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[email-masked]>
To: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:55:22 +0000
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>

Ron,

If you want to discuss your analysis please let’s do so in a separate email thread out of the context of the Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.

As I said before: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards Track document and this topic is not about any standardization, hence out of scope of this document.

Same applies to other content (e.g. illustrations) that was formerly in network programming and we moved to a separate draft since it was not standardizing anything at all and was merely informative.

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 19:17
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Pablo,

RFC 8354 reinforces my analysis in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI. Are you saying that you agree with this analysis?

                                             Ron

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:17 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Ron,

SPRING has already done this work and documented the SRv6 use-cases in RFC8354 before progressing with the SRv6 standardization.

Further on, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards Track document.
I fail to see how a cite from RFC8354 or any other text on “SRv6 vs SR-MPLS” standardises anything at all.
Note that we have already removed text from draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (e.g. illustrations) because it was not standardising anything.

Thank you for the suggestion,
Pablo.

From: spring <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> on behalf of Ron Bonica <rbonica=[email-masked]<mailto:rbonica=[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, 30 December 2019 at 11:08
To: SPRING WG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Pablo,

Would you consider adding a short section to the draft explaining the relative advantages of SRv6 over SR-MPLS? This section would explain why an network operator would deploy SRv6 instead of SR-MPLS.

                                                                                         Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

Please excuse any typos, sent from my 'smart'phone.