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

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.

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<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-00>
>
>  Thanks!
>
>  Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
>