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

Alvaro Retana <> Wed, 03 June 2020 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B9C3A0DA6; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E9JgLm5hCSWr; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A466E3A0DA2; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x13so3439158wrv.4; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rvx0k5EqPrwiFs5SgDrAehv1LI74OLX3OtVc3vcCl2c=; b=uCgFuoe0ySmXPX9vUHxhhwsegYvRoMW/N4Tp4ad5UeiAn4/8ab7RjRzuaKPijppoYF z2PX7IHtv/BT5JoeLwJyhPqat6ZgWQuMZcJjh0QN/7OK3C9pi/0rsWk/Bpp2RMEUtEzo aZBuZcCdEX/XCORg1ChQx6Cbv8fYq+0hcZpdQoK0jkKnMaQjnGe1HhwZfNg44Fgl3/Vf 7+iztVTeVPg9HM8B5RmEv5ynVHpCzQXdNCKRGSuG3hR+b3vVqEMoXh7N4gHd8BIlSC8h /NMmx+GdZrT+3gH+9Wt94C+xfnbfIB3dYbxg8ocbjcIVIdtKAYxNRAzgwC7FPsCfUxf1 sU1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rvx0k5EqPrwiFs5SgDrAehv1LI74OLX3OtVc3vcCl2c=; b=orlswx4BNZeB1KaWfmzDeXvZYTwkVCJx1OvaeLEwwJngyek0DzMS5Lh75xD+9o9+ph LcfDT2pCHHSg/6iL4Y7pjHqa2aca9J0Or9tkaLYZKcmTivaLYaGBRPCVUIy0nBPPsH/E TmY79k2MrlRr+U/hRsx80M7cZ5DrhmvtXVLkTkVZjqRmlmZEBhWu727GEA7hsq7ejU+p QUShLmn2RaWyaFyrPRVNHDhTXfuH5GR4sy06/rMNTVTEzvr+ZXnaID21s17iZ99F6RGz x4AxS7Ra/PIVMVnOrhyutT76SXPu8J3bLGfpIGvbsVlpB1s4i5mf5wK4Yk0ks/AbQ+tp vFrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531cy8rZGIHqLGT91Hfc8XVDNxtxEjywE93bg4L5k0+mqwC+dHU6 Z309ea4BjmFz6c0x4i4dt2QRCfXYpr0zduS3tfc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRS9OT/EkNqY+guspYZ7iMhoVVdP3PRPZ4YpoUg1UloFBnvAJr05SxoKZe2nSnDytrnDg34Fo4GvaJhHonkw8=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:a283:: with SMTP id s3mr647816wra.147.1591208964151; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:29:23 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:29:23 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Fernando Gont <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, IESG <>, "" <>, IETF Chair <>, Sander Steffann <>, Andrew Alston <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 18:29:27 -0000

On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:


Hi!  How are you?

> 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.

> 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. We
do not believe that continuing the discussion will be conducive to a
faster resolution or lead to a different outcome.

Take care!

Alvaro - for the IESG