Re: [spring] Draft design team charge

Joel Halpern <> Tue, 07 July 2020 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36D13A0F6D for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d5cLQOUXxSmq for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B277B3A0F6B for <>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1SRT39Wbz6GDCM; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1594139013; bh=GWvP2fGZSzm4ocOFtPd+VWElH/RtfrJpdM5PGKX53Js=; h=Subject:From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Q6YJ8y/Ri/D8PTcf1EgQ/llNxDPaWvnxcOMn5LTzSZ/oYlXeAzRTeT5a2T4zfBVMo gOk+zlKwu9TxfYcyLaCgVM1yfOv7R0WdJFeo+KlBy9Mc3gGugc4NV5mEuHq4Kzh00Z jHAgWC45sVrE7cgVkyvaJNql909OK8ufNPOgfviw=
X-Quarantine-ID: <YCd5qwQk6m9L>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B1SRS6NHKz6GBCw; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Halpern <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 12:23:31 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Draft design team charge
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 16:23:36 -0000

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.


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