Re: [spring] Draft design team charge

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Sorry folks.  This is the wrong version.  I will resend in a moment. 
The important error is that it has the wrong affiliation for Cheng 
Weiqiang, for which I sincerely apologize.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/7/2020 12:20 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
> 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 Telecom 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 and
>      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 recommendations 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Th