Revised I-D and WG Last Call (was Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.com>
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 12CDC3A0F2E; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 23:38:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=bHOtAFAS; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=YMhUNtZz
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 s4JKJ-CDDNC8; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 23:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 907883A0F2C; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 23:38:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11849; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1583393903; x=1584603503; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=KeKRT1rbahbfN5oO/pSn9LBt0niCYc/Yubb0Y/jRTCU=; b=bHOtAFAS8P42usIVWzUYPB6VAnBirfv5D5Indl/+FMPf4zGKDfDE8b27 vsims/GkEjyw1VDJkawdSyJ2IfbNR3adG8zD1/BxpUr/riGOCJNZT70ZY ScdB20UuzSQteFy1duys83Iq4cxglpvQEnHBbHjECB+XLfl2bthLWYvn1 k=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:z1/MAR8d9QY2Zf9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+8ZB7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVcObGEvwL/PCZC0hF8MEX1hgrDm2
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DrDgC3q2Be/40NJK1mHgELHIMgL1AFbFggBAsqhBWDRgOKapYShGKBQoEQA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIEAQGEQxmBbyQ4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FVgyFZhYRHQEBNwERAUoCBDAnBAENGQ6DBAGBfU0DLgGiOwKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWFGxiCDAmBOIwnGoFBP4ERJyCCHy4+hBYBEgGDMjKCLJBmhXCYVHYKgjyWZhybMY5ym0sCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkiZ3FwFWUBgkFQGA2OHTiDO4pVdIEpjX0BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,517,1574121600"; d="scan'208,217";a="737261135"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Mar 2020 07:38:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0257cLVo014603 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:38:21 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:38:20 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:38:13 -0500
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:38:12 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=BKUBe817UPOP5lZRm/0IG7CjdrILk8n4cwrlnzHT0fB9Hwhdp4iedlCsAH6bQy3E0qpeguqA2umzJE1XhoR1H7LejCJnBmPdS9++phDNRwQwXaFKiuL0oMHmNznXgBgWppyW4HWXPmHkeEktrwDuGDiEYoOUK+Isfd4yGU/6VYSoez9fjAbtAH6xUv1CtmY1g59y/MHS96YIZoMEcVpVnRkAbkY79ROXtOjjsaZHBIuT3PALYxv61mBytt1SP8njTnH7n5EEPFsUe+eMpSpkYDsLWy/1xTopLWxBCm+WcFYIQpx50enLq2vZ6ajrHxy0yMDNLP3JWYsV/5tgUFW+rw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;bh=KeKRT1rbahbfN5oO/pSn9LBt0niCYc/Yubb0Y/jRTCU=; b=AWnmuf+2nsZqrVjtDjIN1qgd4oeHGaPO1/eAwO2paGPqna2tN3vgEPxI5IqtWfRnSw4Ve8nLjq89fhvxyGCXRhZNExVsfeQoEtakzSfOM0w0eHO5g2Fi+peK4YIED9sSnczoEVu6ULPNc465VubxJmC9q5TNn1gFB85iX/wln6REN3oH7U0pLxAN9mEOTQ9uHvudGtVwQzh1kBeYchzrklXxjcd7faYf3WiiaXzErdpnSloB42U0jEBKfls3PzJ3KXUELFSC9RH9raRVBAbS1JqYIjXJiZNP3IEyGjK8WBCd04UStIj4me/FtG5tdQfXYWGgkS8iz9gqhgCcA/mqjw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=KeKRT1rbahbfN5oO/pSn9LBt0niCYc/Yubb0Y/jRTCU=; b=YMhUNtZzU1LSQN9tLJM801gk2sU/NjLMNNRu0zf16EjFhUP25LA7T4BqDxZu1lQx9M+XnlYm8P06Du/IO2NoSeJ8e+dVP4NIn7ZTqGZbktPpgakjT+301TGwaZ/75K8/84IhG/uVfXOJ1WBqDYV3gyPMNpxB2zPR/iD0hV1cJYY=
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:10d::13) by DM5PR11MB1500.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:b::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2772.15; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:38:11 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::680d:e22e:72d5:67ca]) by DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::680d:e22e:72d5:67ca%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2772.019; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 07:38:11 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
CC: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Subject: Revised I-D and WG Last Call (was Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)
Thread-Topic: Revised I-D and WG Last Call (was Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming)
Thread-Index: AQHV8N90GnkxzCjZQkyhg5+DYeQhaQ==
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 07:38:11 +0000
Message-ID: <A78F6E49-62CE-428D-924D-9B257ECC9838@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.22.0.200209
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evyncke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:bd:6d37:e06a:deff]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1ab82363-ae18-4ab1-8948-08d7c0d82846
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1500:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB1500817509EE61929CEEEC87A9E20@DM5PR11MB1500.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 03333C607F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(346002)(396003)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(5660300002)(66476007)(64756008)(6486002)(66446008)(66556008)(478600001)(91956017)(2616005)(2906002)(186003)(66946007)(76116006)(6512007)(33656002)(4326008)(316002)(71200400001)(6506007)(86362001)(8676002)(81156014)(8936002)(36756003)(110136005)(81166006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1500; H:DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 1d3QdXob0LTnbBp/oQqAWz2nu6ick/BhKZx42v6rLKomqHahH+zMTs0RPWjtJ+yWLAWL9J4LHwgRquzcALagazCBhpHVyQRYYIfvFIgxz/J67EA2+j1mJ1nropTXo4ughibi0hFaMR4V9jNWV2qEgJ8ftzF/NA87HTojzTyESDHexiMllBery7c3hAauTOyLSnOZkMdADAKerDjX2kkiRzL3AwXdw0figPkDpbWzlLSW+JQ7D+53dv6B6gpxBLMLfdIY2wUlfTuPmQedDZHch9tHv0HtqruTQg1rFbL1owV533ik5a+w5xZoJomd00SvKbu7x9dheHHbfFirEk+qANt7Jr5N/6tlspfgGKEolhoLQ07mdrzCQaQUnAN/F+sIUywJR+o/auFW7u7P6AD6bTh/vLOt4IfiTEs/ojunaAPu1bHZSt2wXv1MygO/FoXt
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: afULAtTHVXo9hWVQhsj4MkZXUtV0ObO+2sC6cBVt1qgTHOMm4pO4Prm9Dr4YlmKHZSnFAbt3IQrUlKV2C+2V71rRDtEyXcGA5CZ83aO6EBN0FXEk0fzs9YnKnVHh4J57O9848DcxD8LMD2fTBtYUHPgtT2BpWv2X37br04UcToW8v+nBZsNfIVgHW1DYkyBDXDuaKu4CqiX8q57KMR6waQ==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A78F6E4962CE428D924D9B257ECC9838ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1ab82363-ae18-4ab1-8948-08d7c0d82846
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Mar 2020 07:38:11.6485 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: /uahfz7ZI3ocpToXo/KK/wnkQ0Qsqg5+J+kHm63pKyYxF8mIctwGkWNpmZsrHIt9KG3xMf8kMgKj/889HEzHYA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1500
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/_jn893FJu9vNt-AOnq1f_5nQ8RY>
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 07:38:26 -0000

[not related to this specific Working Group Last Call (WGLC): Martin, the responsible AD, has explained the specifics again in another email]

But, for information, let me share my experience as an Area Director (AD) as I had similar situations in my first year as AD:

  1.  Document is proposed by the WG for publication by the IESG, so after the WGLC
  2.  As an AD, I do my own AD review, leading most of the times to a revised I-D; usually, this revised I-D does not go through another WGLC as the changes are quite often minor / non protocol changing
  3.  Then, a IETF last call is initiated (so covering the previous changes anyway as the WG members can review it again obviously), often leading the revised I-D
  4.  Then, the IESG evaluation often leads to multiple COMMENT and DISCUSS
  5.  So, most of the time, yet another revised I-D with more changes in the text
  6.  ***IF AND ONLY IF*** the changes since IETF LC are really impacting (see for example draft-ietf-hip-dex) then, my job as an AD is to evaluate those changes, to make a judgement call, and possibly to issue another IETF Last Call; but, this is really the exception: only twice during my first year.

In short, once a document is proposed for publication by the WG (action by the chair), the IETF last call is mandatory [1] ***AND*** a rough consensus is also to be built by the wider community. Finally, there is always the possibility to start an appeal.

For info and an anecdote, I have seen documents with consensus in WGLC and no consensus at the IETF LC => they are sent back to the authors/WG :-O

Note: I am not a process person: I simply follow RFC 2026 and try to do what is good for the community... so happy to stand corrected on the above.

Hope this clarifies somehow the process around Last Call,

Regards,

-éric

[1] at least for the IETF stream