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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 27 February 2020 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476E83A0AB7; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:59:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hGnkKI3X-1RW; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20A153A0AB6; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48T3Rb5YJfz1nscX; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:59:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1582833595; bh=UXDQNbGPMh3dCvo+Y/gJI8OhtGROA/0nHddUHZyOihg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fbYa+IaXHMbEqCND/7xucpNsIwxsNRfLyd4+aN6k3lX2yu+rzynEztgzxiMpSP+4l 7GrfCm/hSSAQf7hvxxDt+2dD3HMaus12Y2NE5gm7p36F6s1HtI8Sj2iBK3CNS/IQaM qvYH1UzTIBdmJE+ojq9XPPdwj2nNE3Hjzv6+U4TU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48T3RZ055Jz1ns2W; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, Bob Hinden <>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>, Warren Kumari <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:59:51 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 19:59:58 -0000

Two different disagreements with you.
First, I did list adoption as well as last call.  In adoption the chairs 
can't very well look back at the adoption to see if there was really 
Second, it is the WG, not the document authors, that send a document to 
the AD for IETF approval.  if the only people who think the AD and IESG 
should put in the work are the authors, how can the chairs say to the AD 
"the WG supports this".  At best, you would have to have a very 
wishy-washy shepherd writeup.  Particularly if it has been several years 
since the adoption.  Or worse, several years since the WG even touched 
the document.

I do try to find alternatives before just giving up.  Extending adoption 
or last call windows, with prompting notes about the work (usually) 
being in charter or even (when appropriate) how important the work is to 
the overall goal.


On 2/27/2020 2:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Joel M. Halpern < 
> <>> wrote:
>> Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is 
>> whether the working group even cares about the document.  I have had 
>> several cases of calls for adoption or WG last call where there was 
>> almost no response on the mailing list.  In the absence of decent 
>> indication, I as chair feel compleed to say "no, I do not see enough 
>> support to adopt / advance / ... this document".
>> In that situation, even +1s can help.  (And yes, I do watch for the 
>> case of all the +1s coming from the same company as the author, and 
>> then start judging whether they are folks who participate, along the 
>> lines Warren outlined.)
> In my experience this is actually the wrong thing to do.  If the work 
> was chartered, and a bunch of people go off and do the work, and then by 
> the time the work is done the working group has lost momentum other than 
> those people, saying “Oh, I guess nobody cares, we won’t publish” is the 
> wrong outcome.