[spring] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp-13: (with COMMENT)

[Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]>]

Dear Deb,  

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.  

Regarding the IANA early assignment statements, we will ensure they are clearly marked for easy identification in the next version of the draft.  

To clarify：
Regarding the concept of a “trusted domain” in SRv6 networks, there have indeed been interesting discussions within the SPRING WG and SRv6OPS WG. From an operator’s perspective, networks under the same operational domain are usually regarded as fulfilling the “trusted domain” criteria. That said, this document does not touch the “trusted domain” aspect—its primary focus is on improving the operational efficiency of SRv6 networks.  :)

Please feel free to share any further comments.  

Best regards,  
Weiqiang Cheng 

From: Deb Cooley via Datatracker
Date: 2026-01-12 21:28
To: The IESG
CC: aretana.ietf; buraglio; draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp; spring-chairs; spring
Subject: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp-13: (with COMMENT)
Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp-13: No Objection
 
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
 
 
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
 
 
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp/
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is outside my area of expertise.
 
This observation requires no response. Noting that these SR networks are
trusted in one breath and then also noting that manual configuration is complex
in the next breath is a bit interesting.   The larger the 'trusted network' is,
the less trustworthy it becomes, no?
 
One nit:  Sections 4.1 and 4.2 have statements about IANA early assignments. 
These need to be notated so that the Editor can more easily see that they are
to be removed/modified.