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

Warren Kumari <> Thu, 27 February 2020 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF8C3A0E86 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:09:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qHqXuA05H4F for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF3A3A0E7E for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f140so227300qke.11 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:09:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uX+Ida6Aol8H0/p7hlnCkO3XjuYgfkhJIFzYeLXZC8o=; b=cKZQN3UW/PA41hNsIY7UFkPWuixi8SDLLkJvNLzZv/aHvJm2F5fR6VnUZDS+sFB/k7 gbWPnrH2ARs7JQu47UEkUK4nKRNoQzPeAgMTvMlSqovpqVoeHg1eR99b7WhnVTEXjfHR JzfInIW5txwlfiRtfnnU2GsqB3GqAmtqSs5NYPl+q1h1Zjfu+mOlmA8ufsBMfSrxeCnS /VoVNbLX1Hb2G07z4P0wu9ew9bwXh2nr7MD9vEGHx7kO8aTvoO/0KeLEMjKa4ZGcb4yN BqzJ4wJrucclSImC+H82JBpP2E/BODeTgDvPQxBKR7I40BvQVRShWlexg9XA10rG1vE9 3PfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uX+Ida6Aol8H0/p7hlnCkO3XjuYgfkhJIFzYeLXZC8o=; b=q24K29A6kHGn5dMRe7QVr+RC8eNQoGIkJ5dSRQDH/lqhP8+aZfjpHXmeKu5iUQQ7vJ x/nUGMvjx15MTiFh7DGQUjiSlqQgA9w0pzRMmVQZgw21btLkNKY1bMAB1UsWKsrfvRuP CxPE6kIT3gkibHZwmH3kf7GMzYJlL6Rge6X3G5tb7E9JYQj2+BBrcf4w1jxGTnToXC5V JoEawgGX0Q5k6Hafzcx05v4M58gMXsEzK1ddpWqJPntzNHZorlXXoNCxehC2jXR7YW14 SNEL78ZjFQ7Hn95iSW6O1rilwQrV+GNO2/1C3LQbg6M+VWC6eJGfDOUtflcoyq8BSspb ey1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWfyRsiKAKVASz8A+n2qCrEuKCedEwimS5xEMUoDEQH1ovswX1r yY2UEqCw9lxnie/8jxWbgwCEryf3HUTjVZT8mmExnA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJHbIuWxS/sq12fwrq8yXfqjFb3bRAps3zZYclNaIFxnPyl5exw6SCDCF1Oe9kOW2+0bKe+cG8qh9DaxPxb28=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a8c3:: with SMTP id r186mr518702qke.37.1582826978185; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:09:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:09:01 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>, John Leddy <>, SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, Bob Hinden <>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 18:09:41 -0000

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:14 PM Brian E Carpenter
<> wrote:


> It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they do, I don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I just delete it.

Actually, when I see a message whose content is just "+1" (or
something similar like "I support this"), and the sender hasn't been
deeply involved in the conversation, I start thinking it is vote
stuffing. If this happens repeatedly I become increasingly convinced
of this.
"We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough
consensus and running code." - we don't vote. Having a thousand people
who have not made good technical points / provided substantive text /
review / contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way suddenly
say "I support this" is not just meaningless, it is actively harmful -
who are they? what do they know? what does their opinion matter? why
did someone feel it necessary to recruit them?
This is true for a bunch of *known* people from the same company /
group / organization / similar all suddenly arriving and supporting or
objecting to a position without good (and distinct!) reasons.

Over time people build up credibility -  if Brian Carpenter (or Randy
Bush or Russ Housley or John Scudder or ...) simply adds a "I support
foo" (or "+1") message to a thread it *does* carry weight; their
statement isn't made in a vacuum - I consider if they have
demonstrated previous knowledge *in the topic*, if they have made
useful contributions, etc. before deciding if their comment *means*
anything, and what bias it carries.

I can spend all day supporting <insert some topic here>, but unless I
have *demonstrated* knowledge, skillset and a track record, my support
isn't useful..


>    Brian
> > Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
> >
> > Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
> >
> > -éric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ipv6 <> on behalf of Warren Kumari <>
> >
> > ...%<...%<....
> >
> >     It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
> >     -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
> >     - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
> >     category...
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >
> > Administrative Requests:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.