Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

"john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net> Wed, 26 February 2020 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <john@leddy.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E433A138B; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:22:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 H8znptTzvE6T; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob22.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob22.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A663A1386; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4oxapp107 ([10.30.71.144]) by atl4mhob22.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01QKM2bX025529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:22:02 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:22:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
Reply-To: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Sander Steffann <sander@retevia.net>
Cc: spring@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <626312047.530170.1582748522771@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0fb41cc-b830-3c72-c03d-591f9ff0722b@si6networks.com>
References: <7B51F0BE-CE40-42B8-9D87-0B764B6E00C5@steffann.nl> <47B4D89B-D752-4F4C-8226-41FCB0A610F0@retevia.net> <CAOj+MMGYtGOi2n_E57TTfD_3kWvkqWGWhhfev4Z2GVwJD5oSnQ@mail.gmail.com> <e0fb41cc-b830-3c72-c03d-591f9ff0722b@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.0-Rev28
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-YoRXJYJkRksenu4-R4a14_Z7Ic>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:22:06 -0000

I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF"...

My question is: How do you reach Consensus when the complaint is about how many milliseconds it takes to shoot down a proposal?

Is this about the proposal or the vendor involved?


> 
> A number of us wonder how many milliseconds it would have taken for this 
> proposal to be shot down if it wasn't being pushed by a big vendor.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------