Subject: [spring] Un-addressed issues in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 19:55:21 -0300

Folks,

I'm trying to come up with a list of the issues raised during the WGLC 
of this document.

So far, this is what I have:

1) Participants requested a justification for the need of PSP 
(Penultimate Segment Pop). [PSP-R]

2) Participants noted that PSP violates RFC8200 [IPV6-V]

3) Participants noted that PSP violates the specification of routing 
headers [SR-V]

4) Participants requested a more prescriptive SID format [SID]

Is there anything I've missed?

References:

[IPV6-V] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/XZ_D_cfPNNzXpi4_ZbuTidMTo4k/

[PSP-R] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/eSP4xVYVgjtCmAMGMkqHedv80jU/

[SID] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2ApHpreqPTS689pAEyhiZEdTf7k/

[SR-V] 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Xrcclo0s4pnug9upG9rUinYMv1I/

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492