IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 29 April 2025 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C383522A9E7B; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gw1fG_GYJsXt; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D6AE22A9E74; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-b0b2d0b2843so5237718a12.2; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1745943031; x=1746547831; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=U6GdzGx1/oRL1hJy7zq7L2lfKC1Kr6EEAC830IG9cwc=; b=Reo7F4pbbkNjv7fa75fsPCXQJvoOGDVUXpDxr6ZvF/dyq/HG8BFEeVCsjYpDpV43PS mmkbtPkEhHlCu215JZSZ3kvB2zGhn8tGxoRkk1Dv/GEfKj6awDaH6StyQKW/FyfwcKnR C4SnMSjbkzntehq1jSnO+mXvIUIrSRnS4yyLp+7ZRBkNGrq3+WeE4HxVjrIQpBUN7G3i ILpCs4bzrmvxB1LXx21ijFu3D6C94AIqSI35lUCyHQK+kfreU+dVpE2C2AcADdgIsh59 YnSTDfct+7DOPAoVkjXOYhVk2xyOu0ts8Z8Mi51D7SHDeE9+SYj7NuSsIqvRNIFEbBGY UN4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1745943031; x=1746547831; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=U6GdzGx1/oRL1hJy7zq7L2lfKC1Kr6EEAC830IG9cwc=; b=dgoxYVb3IAIHAUSbi2aC900MXXtqibr6XAGLpfGgbjuRz82umSNX2pd4xFH8I67Cm6 s0VzT2rJQQtQ0K3OrdH98RSgNNe5ccFRZ2b+Rs4UrSjFGn9mAuPZP/k2hySq+rt4PXOY WwxsD/Yz2OV5XRTE31eGMIKvPaFpXagTYarjYXFYIYDitAGC7GqLja6cVFPC9HMhs6Zl l+IM5oFCPrT8oUW7M3scJ7liVmCNsscMZIyh1+5EKWgAxoPmc6gcEQ1ru5pCRAVgrFcy AahSEo1lKExdempMKsLgrsFWv59aML0YNCaDTxOVOjfSfS7rY04DblwuHLrTBqTHfUfV zNtg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXfBSBy+UodvkGTbKEBWf8ZccDTFR5DZ0EuW2jWed0y1zBMvGkLe7ARfpGr3h6v70t+SBrODDc=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx26nP1CruBasRBDmtsReSor6eShHyYevZDawtYRbSAJhMcwCgi VfxV7mOqlafRPpgeY3sHBEG5WkooHBSuolJfX3xrnYyVSEwPXulHLc4nAY+ZDR0d1swGw9Z8N/H rsNoqYthYEjn73g/H4YFyeRGJBm8kXJuM
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsJ7VlttJ+LAKIZNaayZOZixf+S1Z6lXCbubkVwVnW+j/k/R8bN0YvICu27qZh E54SVK4KHu9Vz7y21TpLzMrKIrNDrUKXpJos3N1ukTDgVGzEFKmDx5kARlykt+nMQCe57fsMdws 3O6hGNxF5+W7y8c+R6d7Z1cr3JHnlFprgiI84DfXvlN7X3vq/GeaAZMY0a
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEMErYjX6MmORW392DyBsCgMqkXlo/wqQJe59BNsR0Nop4SfcXOkUS3xdxMSZcTgJabTEThu3sDd3sL6A7d8i4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2dc4:b0:2ee:6d08:7936 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-30a220e2dffmr5121761a91.20.1745943031066; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:29 -0700
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:29 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MR1PPFC3B5BBE275D56728EC8D784D0A15AF0802@MR1PPFC3B5BBE27.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CAMMESsyn8caVJoefoCYMvfPdK2Mmu9Pj5QE2mRnsRLNSq5Gxhw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR11MB46923EE70FB92BAC5FDC7EE0DEB52@DM6PR11MB4692.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <202504101416050438343@chinamobile.com> <MR1PPFC3B5BBE27A19F98D64EE27C6C1CEAF0BF2@MR1PPFC3B5BBE27.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <202504231055189407815@chinamobile.com> <MR1PPFC3B5BBE275D56728EC8D784D0A15AF0802@MR1PPFC3B5BBE27.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 09:10:29 -0700
X-Gm-Features: ATxdqUEG2ipSh1N91qeDXvShKJTBjCDEWRdanXtuF0HEJ5UTLml4XD7VyMh5NqY
Message-ID: <CAMMESsySywjEs0SGg_cTHTVypG4FmDvq97WfGaEjJ5AGgnD_gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming@ietf.org" <draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a39790633ed0ae2"
Message-ID-Hash: YYY45HSWADAPGFJ6OPRSUPCGTSHM7YAF
X-Message-ID-Hash: YYY45HSWADAPGFJ6OPRSUPCGTSHM7YAF
X-MailFrom: aretana.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/YAtwSvkcgDWX8YkJE_oP7gyX-gc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>

 Dear WG/Authors:


This message concludes the WG Adoption call for this draft. Thank you all
for your engagement during the discussion!

While some have argued that defining a new SRv6 Endpoint Behavior is
unnecessary in this case, there are subtle differences in the expected
operation. The allocation policies allow new behaviors or variations on the
existing ones to be allocated. It is better to document newly allocated
Endpoint Behaviors, even if there are alternate solutions for similar
problems, than to leave them undocumented. This WG adoption call has
clearly demonstrated interest in documentation.

It will be up to the WG to clearly articulate the scenarios where the new
behavior can be used, any differences with respect to existing behaviors,
and possibly the alternatives.


Authors:  Please go ahead and post
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming-00


Thanks!

Alvaro (for spring-chairs)

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status