Re: [Status] Status of Spring

I can understand the concern. Making a new option for V6 exposes it to misuse by the endpoints as was previously the case for v4.

What is wrong with an approach that is MPLS first and then an evolution of MPLS? That would work for IPV6/V4 or whatever else goes on top.

I mean is it heresy to suggest that we should evolve MPLS in the future? 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: status-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:status-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:52 PM
To: Adrian Farrel; status@ietf.org
Cc: Joel Jaeggli; Benoit Claise; Jari Arkko; John G. Scudder; Alvaro Retana
Subject: [Status] Status of Spring

The SPRING charter was discussed on the telechat today. We have
a small issue with the OAM and management deliverable text that
I am working with Benoit.

The largest sticking point is the IPv6 text, where a number of
ADs are concerned that given the previous security issues with
source routing, they are concerned at the difficulty we face
significant difficulty designing a satisfactory IPv6 solution.
There was some discussion on the call about limited network
scope, but concern was expressed that once the feature was
in the wild, the scope would be difficult to control.

Jari who is the main discuss holder will work with us over
the next couple of days to try to get some text that will allow
us to go forward. The goal is to get the charter into external
review by Monday night so it can go to external review
on Tuesday and be on the following telechat for approval
by Vancouver.

Currently SPRING is of course a BOF and I have asked Alvaro
Retana, and John Scudder to chair the BOF in Vanouver.

If the charter text still has unresolved issues by the time
we meet in Vancouver, then they should be the first
priority on the agenda.

- Stewart

_______________________________________________
status mailing list
status@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status