Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement

On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> Support.
> 
> I think the document could be better if it had more detail pertaining to the problem statement, specifically regarding the shortcomings of existing source routing techniques.  For example the document says it we should have a slightly modified IPv6 header, but it does not say why the current header is lacking.

thanks for the suggestion. In fact, one of the reasons for having the 
SRH is that RH0 (its ancestor) has been deprecated (see RFC5095).

We will add to the draft some more explanations on the SRH motivation.

thanks.
s.

> Anoop
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement.
> 
> Please indicate your position about adopting this use cases draft by end-of-day on March 27, 2014.
> 
> Some additional background:  We had issued a call for adoption for draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02 back in November.  From both the discussion at the meeting in Vancouver and on the list, there was consensus to adopt.  The authors published draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00 as a revision to the original draft without the solution being present in the use case description.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring