Re: Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1F73A0ECF; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFCLPu0qBBFm; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54CCF3A0ECE; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:5c39:6620:28e8:109c] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:5c39:6620:28e8:109c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C45EF2838FB; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:33:29 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>, Andrew Alston <andrew.alston@liquidtelecom.com>
References: <66655d5e-0a81-3b9c-0cd6-127ccc371aca@si6networks.com> <CA577112-6A87-42E6-99C2-CF662E8CB9E9@ietf.org> <a76157a8-034e-a964-be50-d046c0fb2730@si6networks.com> <CAMMESsyX09YO-CwwKLWRwY9Nw38C4yAdWCs44uXSEWYjo_wq0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <13ebc90f-8818-0120-688e-6a2e0c2ac3ac@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 01:19:36 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyX09YO-CwwKLWRwY9Nw38C4yAdWCs44uXSEWYjo_wq0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/723ltLiFsU11GJmhoRi58kkh508>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:33:42 -0000

Hello, Alvaro,

On 3/6/20 15:29, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
[....]> ...
>> Note: I fail to see your analysis regarding technical objection #3: Your
>> analysis focuses on RFC8200 (the focus of technical objection #2), but
>> doesn't even mention RFC8754 (the relevant RFC for technical objection #3).
> 
> In relation to technical point 3, the concern you pointed at [SR-V]
> was resolved in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12
> [diff11-12] with text suggested by Brian Carpenter [SR-VA] on the same
> thread.  Given that the resolution is also related to the
> interpretation of RFC 8200 we decided to group the responses.  We
> should have mentioned this fact before.

I disagree. Technical point #2 is a different concern than technical 
point #3. That's the reason why they have been presented to you as two 
different technical points.

So, I don't think your response to technical point #2 answers the 
concerns in technical point #3.



>> For the sake of transparency, while I haven't talked to my fellow
>> Appellants about your response, I for one plan to Appeal to the IAB to
>> resolve this issue. That said, I'd appreciate your response to the
>> comments made above.
> 
> Except for the clarification above, it is not the intent of the IESG
> to reply to your other comments at this time. We have already provided
> carefully considered responses to all points raised in your appeal. 

FWIW, my take is that many of them have just been ignored. But so be it.

Thanks for your time,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492