Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 27 February 2020 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E272D3A0920 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:07:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z90O6pxm8YUR for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDDB13A0924 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z19so478890qkj.5 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:07:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ezKbPOpjeEX3BfF6qB7hhao+f1doJlnSq2FYcdnap78=; b=1JKHGDzX37EdcW0b5v2XsTsakv05lCmdGul9zRFzUROI1RL1zaAG5X0APFANx54Fcr ZJEwcuakdzQ2wBU5KW1ykdc1unIz9EDdqEFTKn0BnjCCss7ZoG5EVeF6pyHXhLGr5f+L tB3JaBfCmRHGRQS5WvmEfHhkk1kFtCNUwJ9JMG2DIz6JHdMEgihNHD+uuyhwxjmZkf1w XJf6B/AkF2WJxGaQNfsvlIx8UNeoYsgR06/+DBfVj2kd9scBE6+nMdDp8LC7H0L4D3Bb AnbyNZKj2++HjiBrEnQSS2O5JAQN6Z8dQg0es79E1OryuFd0qwSY8K+iN7rdR5f59gML /EIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ezKbPOpjeEX3BfF6qB7hhao+f1doJlnSq2FYcdnap78=; b=ic9h0ApHqXGsErtQ1jJ6B9wdJiAUI47b7trzRKL4fgQXKDXW/Nu21QdwqGtxOhw2Qk aDIkFnVtQ+3BMBhl6fDuvHQNNrEIE3JwzEXpMyvcZS5jRYNw+2+iLdbV7GjYaIt+2EKh E9xdxkxrU1r/IcLM9OxAIyeODmOj7cgPijaDrkkMTEiB+laOrap+N51d4989gsICGLWz 9Fw9W+15ZPlZDOqalfTE2LSA5dNugrTvs2xEbfed0JFYXFjdLkKxcxhcOfGTMXcwfgYC qgm4YU/+6hzu6nZYHxh23IG0cNDAm7ecvissIvd3TYorC90HZYoln7dzvoo8OAcMQUj9 2ojg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9h5zbT49HtmZJKQWImXP22NvJXhZevYCJgOUtsFv9ysX5bnaE METji9IwIrpd9YUEXyqMrrHe4VoqUY8KyQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhtxsO2z/nk59hj+hMLEB+zammGgfa9FdIVc5BTLv3lvuF0qF899u5XcT99nHW/cOCxCVrVg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9284:: with SMTP id u126mr880258qkd.470.1582830451068; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:50ee:a3fe:ec9d:4bdb? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:50ee:a3fe:ec9d:4bdb]) by with ESMTPSA id e2sm3656145qkb.112.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:07:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_98CFFB82-C7EE-43AF-8460-F9C24F0F123E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3622.0.6\))
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:07:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Warren Kumari <>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>, SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, Bob Hinden <>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3622.0.6)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:07:35 -0000

On Feb 27, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
> It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of retrieving judgement from real group of folks who understand given proposal. 

We do.   It’s called “substantive comments.”

> "+1" is just only one demonstration of it. Humming is another. Raising hands one more. We say there is no voting but while there is no formal ballot box nor even e-ballot version of it all of the above ways to gather "consensus" are examples of voting. 

Actually, the purpose of humming is not to make a decision, but to figure out whether there is general consensus.   If you ask for a hum and you get a 50-50 response, there probably isn’t consensus, and you might just say “we don’t have consensus” and go on to figuring out how.   If the “no” hum has no loud participants, you might say “looks like we’re good to go, we’ll confirm on the list.”   If there’s someone humming loudly no when everybody else is in favor, and you don’t know why they’re humming that way, that’s a good time to ask them if they are willing to explain.

But bear in mind that humming does not take place on the mailing list, and that consensus is called on the mailing list, not in the room.

On the mailing list, people pretty much have to raise objections verbally.  No amount of +1s should be considered meaningful at all.   The work is chartered; the wg is supposed to do it.   If there are no objections, and people feel the document is ready, then it should move forward, whether there are +1s or not.   If objections are raised, and they are substantive (that is, not opinion or conjecture), then they have to be addressed.   They can be addressed by saying “we considered that, and the working group as a whole agrees that the problem exists, but it doesn’t need to be addressed because this document is only applicable in a situation where the objection raised doesn’t matter.”  Or it can add text to address the objection, as Brian I think has suggested.   Or it can do additional work to address the problem, as Brian has also suggested.

But the WG can’t simply ignore the objection.  That is not what “rough consensus” means.