Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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 3C89F3A0E3B; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 WEPb2Iy951NM; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F8163A0E39; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id k13so8778543wrx.3; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=lOl94cBXW+oRFN9gTlg+XS8FZ1p8miV2pCE5bkPuCps=; b=NqylYYq9/oSQ8Dp8sclmFrFeeJReZsgIZWO1ngQVRx3ZskGOEjjo9IO1LGNKupRqUy EaS5RG5FCZfC7GrlIzaTdDlPZb4+twVmSow2z4jLJsyteoVelporY7H4o3aKr2ZJQU0+ SoKNW4vAL6LnsUwZ7rMf5r5YP3Jualyl6JsxwcQNeI+0Wc7RmEYfpHRgcv4ndeCk+u5U WPZKIjDkY89ztHc14DhknEq4UTugwu1is+iVfaNQ1J3ZF1OYzVyLvpBwxraEoqvBNuKk YDakfs0l031Zp3Madn87zkTUVXrivbTwZyXiUjAHt4kaaOSQyW4Fnlc5R5fYLvc90+vt bBuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=lOl94cBXW+oRFN9gTlg+XS8FZ1p8miV2pCE5bkPuCps=; b=sZ52P3eQciikzzuH+dEAnKHvWUeoesyDxXWKartGFTTA2W6uIl/AnDCUcWYoduJ0yx wqXME3ENBaElCtT5mn8WIJ7nEF08d18fVf/9+U//fYW52mwEbHNQjzdNUfzwayNcwj0s YvW8cuDaHUxHJD50PUvTFKm+guGwLlRfjgZsumFOiCMm0Lp3Vm4aKG74L8BNCZu9y+oI tBbJfBYuwm4xa+Py7lsXBoHxSMAkEUk6hMSobKBPzO+7kEouwaUdiLEdGESSsWLT2YFw ztWNcAw6FMolKcw2R6x4wMPbIanUpV5bmpq+ClnuQvl2qPYJKrmwXosayHli8lnQPkzx RpTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yqO2+lUApo5YXSxcoobItWeTyy/I+CAUQWBiu61aqFHs1TlOr ihQ41AqrM29xhlKbxy+0zLM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQILdd66vfMlOHXlaT17CQuNg8jm1FdO6P1l6iF83kAVJ7DPgefvXuizsX9IZFFyeA+eineA==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:d0d1:: with SMTP id z17mr1525000wrh.175.1590118422863; Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 37sm8401925wrk.61.2020.05.21.20.33.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5F062FA6-9E2D-46BB-A3D6-257D374D8F92@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DEDE4119-AA7B-4FCF-9483-74028C11467D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Subject: Re: [spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 20:33:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB4570B197EE00C5385DAEE138C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <9CF68CCE-B584-4648-84DA-F2DBEA94622D@cisco.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A2C1AE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR05MB6348A22A123AFA7E7345087BAEB70@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB457041A967A6BBDA1C7EF0FDC1B70@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <93a31c7f-a102-da59-d9a8-2585cd8e3c65@gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570B197EE00C5385DAEE138C1B40@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/4-jqNb2VCqTn0_5BUooatuNjt7Y>
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 03:33:46 -0000

Ketan,

> On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Please see my previous response to your comments.
> 
> My argument is not legalistic. I am not as experience in IETF work as you and Bob are. But what I understand is that the reason why we have these "legal" process of charters and BoF is to enable a proper technical discussion with the right context and details of the proposal presented for review of the community.
> 
> I do not see how shortcutting them helps anyone and I wonder why it is being done in this case?

There is no short cutting here.  The adoption call is to determine if there is interest in the w.g. to take this work into 6man.   If it becomes a w.g. draft, then the w.g. is responsible to decide what happens next.

It’s a first step, it is not a decision to publish it.

Bob (w/ w.g. chair hat on)




> 
> Thanks,
> Ketan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Sent: 22 May 2020 04:18
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisco.com>om>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6man@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
> 
> On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> ...> It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source Routing solution..
>> “It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications.”
> 
> If this addition was major, that would be true. But adding a new RH type is well within the scope of maintenance, IMHO. We have already done it quite recently.
> 
> In any case, legalistic arguments about WG charters are really not how we should take technical decisions.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring