[spring] Final? design team charge

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

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 
material.
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.

Yours,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel