Source Packet Routing in Networking
charter-ietf-spring-02

Thanks for the updated text and the discussion to clarify that the actual protocol development
used for source routing is under the purview of different working groups, which explains the
removal of much of the text about specific work items.

I'm balloting No Objection, but hope that people look at the SPRING/IPPM interaction I mentioned below. Otherwise, this is mostly editorial.

I'm not sure who or what finds it advantageous to use loose routing in this text - 

"Full explicit control (through loose or strict
path specification) can be achieved in a network comprising only SPRING
nodes, however SPRING nodes must inter-operate through loose routing in
existing networks and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for
other network applications."

I THINK the reference is to a SPRING node, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm guessing.

Does everyone else know what "specificities" are meant here?

"o Operation, Administration and Management (OAM), and traffic accounting
in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR
introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies."

and 

"o Performance Management (PM) and monitoring in networks with SR-MPLS
and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities
compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies."

On "Performance Management and monitoring", I note that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/ includes Segment Routing as one of its targeted encapsulations. IPPM is Mirja's working group as of about a month ago, but I'm wondering what the overlap might be. Is this something the two groups/ADs have talked about?

It might be less surprising to readers if the working group names under 

"Specific expected interactions"

were capitalized.

Can you please add 6man as a co-ordination working group for the SRv6 Network programming item as well