Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

[Martin Horneffer <[e-mail]>]

My opinion clearly is: The WG should standardize ONE solution for SRv6 
header compression, and it should follow to results of the DT.

Reason: As an operator I could theoretically ignore the effort vendors 
have for implementing solution that I do not care for.
In reality however that usually does takes critical ressources away from 
implementing the technology that I need.
The effect is much later interoperability.

Best regards,
Martin

Am 04.08.21 um 20:52 schrieb Joel M. Halpern:
> The SPRING Working Group Chairs thank the design team for their efforts 
> on the requirements and analysis drafts.  The question of how the 
> working group wants to progress that part of the work will be the topic 
> for a separate email a bit later.
> 
> Right now, we are hearing the discussion about how many solutions, and 
> the perspectives being expressed.  While the topic was well-raised, the 
> discussion to date has not been structured in a way that makes clear to 
> everyone what the purpose is.  In particular, the chairs have decided to 
> re-ask the question.  We ask that even those who have responded in the 
> discussion respond to this thread.  Preferably with both what their 
> opinion is and an explanation of why.
> 
> The question we are asking you to comment on is:
> 
> Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for 
> compressing SRv6 information?
> 
> Please speak up.  We are looking to collect responses until close of 
> business PDT on 20-August-2021.
> 
> Thank you,
> Joel, Jim, and Bruno
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring