Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

["Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

The threads you initiated describing technical questions on the mailing list have been replied by the authors.
You still have not initiated any discussion or clarify your concerns on the topic of “IP Space Burn” on the mailing list. At this point I don’t see any technical discussion points outstanding on this topic.

Regards,
Pablo.

From: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 11:52
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming


First I fail to see in the recording where such promise happened. I asked you for the precise timing but you did not send it.
It seems to me that you are putting words in someone else’s mouth, because the presenter asked you politely to send your comment to the mailer and you didn’t.
Then you are using this fake promise to attack the authors, chair and AD.

Actually – I did send you the timing – please see my email which included a youtube url and a timing.  There is nothing fake about what was stated at the microphone.  Furthermore – the reply to Nick – refers to a /20 – that – is no way indicative of what is contained within RIR policy – not everyone can just lay their hands on a /20.  I also point out – that right now – despite my questions about these deployments – I have asked, multiple times, for information about this.  Those emails – have been met with deafening silence.  Now, normally I would say that what people deploy and what is running code – isn’t that material – but – the day a document is published that makes clear claims to such, those claims become subject to scrutiny and questioning – questions – that are not being answered.

And Pablo,  the issue around RFC8200 – is still very much open – to the point where the WG Chair indicated in his writeup that this was being referred back to the IESG to adjudication – despite your claims that the wording is crystal clear – that is a technical issue.  The issues around the IPv6 addressing semantics – which I raised – time and again – are still very much open – and the issues around address space – where a discussion was promised – in the youtube URL that I sent to the list – has never happened.

Andrew