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

"john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net> Wed, 26 February 2020 20:09 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 C11B03A131D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:09:44 -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=unavailable 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 WqwkPTTd8kfn; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob10.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob10.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) (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 403F53A1332; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4oxapp107 ([10.30.71.144]) by atl4mhob10.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01QK9cQh009013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:09:38 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:09:38 -0500 (EST)
From: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
Reply-To: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, 6man@ietf.org, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <907734565.529015.1582747778596@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJ_ipEvU0NUx44XbK0_DrLe_GRw6G=m+chK4wZcRP8BMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F88E3F76-DD4B-4807-A458-85FABFF20D96@gmail.com> <5D218BFB-0D6F-4F7D-858F-B571A67DC47F@leddy.net> <CAHw9_iJ_ipEvU0NUx44XbK0_DrLe_GRw6G=m+chK4wZcRP8BMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/Kq08RCASiBsLsOWbGSnCgkIqnDY>
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 20:09:45 -0000

The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud hummers. 


> On February 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming
> in the IETF", especially Sections 3 & 6 (it is a short document, you
> should read the whole thing, but pay special attention to these
> sections).
> 
> 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...
> 
> W
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:01 PM John Leddy <john@leddy.net> wrote:
> >
> > +1 in support of moving the document forward.
> >
> > John Leddy
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Zafar,
> > >
> > >> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1,
> > >>
> > >> Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ …
> > >> implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been documented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status/
> > >
> > > I think the proper question is there a consensus to advance this document.
> > >
> > > There seems to be questions about its relationship with RFC8200.  I am not seeing this as being resolved.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > ipv6@ietf.org
> > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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.
>    ---maf