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

<> Wed, 26 February 2020 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9283A09B0; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:39:39 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 JfwwM-djF0Ex; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:39:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73FD53A09B3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:39:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48SKjd5R5Xz10N9; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:39:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1582731573; bh=7BSHdzBMVB4xwSwEYH9Mphhb1PKjmGyPXDCQXJgCgX8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ppddquLHj0uuC4299SQhTs78gbp16UuREZ9gNZ9oJAvnQlRtRA55swFwh5jIK1p1q HD95WSoNL0XP93TNMjFXBjdrfdsTCD26SqLBC/KWI2IuCziXLUtHvPTvshULWpbwV0 hyZGEx4myzq1RjrOBSuxX3AtQMKr8MXc9x2FZUPsrtSFpzS7MbMxTxGSUnUBl16uTL 7rRuWAn7drf8KEiMFimNkkM+t80LnT2nGwGDSITbpdOy+h3HIhEBhbx/H5exDON//Y zNmwqImWjeuCBSE9FiVWReNnYLeKukQ/e5yeNHpEHASLq64ej2kts3vcjuw/IpzZjw 76dbg3GDZGMkA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.35]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48SKjd4qjFzyR1; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:39:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b846:2467:1591:5d9d]) by OPEXCAUBM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:39:33 +0100
From: <>
To: Fernando Gont <>, Lizhenbin <>
CC: 'SPRING WG List' <>, "" <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
Subject: RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Topic: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AQHV7LNgIAadkFZfKUqmA18V88j9U6gtmCcg
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:39:33 +0000
Message-ID: <12857_1582731573_5E569135_12857_117_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DB3A71@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <> <4038_1582727829_5E568295_4038_168_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DB381A@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:39:40 -0000


> From: Fernando Gont [] 
> On 26/2/20 11:37, wrote:
> > Hi Robin,
> > 
> > I think that this was expected that this specific LC would last for more 
> > than 2 weeks.
> > 
> > Summarizing and closing it is on my to do list. (I wish my to do list 
> > were smaller, or that I throw more $$ or contributors on action items. 
> > But wishing does not help much in my world.)
> > 
> > That been said, this does not change much with regards to technical 
> > comments been raised:
> > 
> > -They are either addressed, non-addressed or pending
> > 
> > -they can be raised after the WG LC (e.g. during IETF LC or IESG review)
> > 
> > -they can even be raised after RFC publication. And eventually can led 
> > to errata, bis document, deprecation...
> So... is the plan to ship a document that violates RFC8200?

The above statement was meant to say that if the technical comment is valid, its timing (e.g., the fact that it is raised after the original Last Call period) is not an argument to dismiss this technical argument.

Then your question is orthogonal, and the answer to your question is 'No'.
Note that that is also orthogonal as to whether "doing A" violates RFC X or not.

> Should participants stop wasting time in constructive comments, and 
> rather work and prepare to submit a formal appeal, instead?

What is not clear in " So technical review and comments are good, at all time. "?

Thank you
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: ||
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.