Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

"john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:02 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 C89E43A145F; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:02:48 -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=ham 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 YeoPta3LkxSt; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob14.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob14.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.52]) (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 2CC183A145D; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4oxapp107 ([10.30.71.144]) by atl4mhob14.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01QL2iTD015648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:02:44 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:02:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
Reply-To: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Sander Steffann <sander@retevia.net>
Cc: spring@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1350080398.533463.1582750964295@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <247af621-864b-a726-cc71-baff76ba2c64@si6networks.com>
References: <7B51F0BE-CE40-42B8-9D87-0B764B6E00C5@steffann.nl> <47B4D89B-D752-4F4C-8226-41FCB0A610F0@retevia.net> <CAOj+MMGYtGOi2n_E57TTfD_3kWvkqWGWhhfev4Z2GVwJD5oSnQ@mail.gmail.com> <e0fb41cc-b830-3c72-c03d-591f9ff0722b@si6networks.com> <626312047.530170.1582748522771@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com> <247af621-864b-a726-cc71-baff76ba2c64@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/c9UmlfCwuWkeXQ8AAOQAKuiarUQ>
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 21:02:49 -0000

So you are saying that other than the PSP issue, you support moving the document forward?



> On February 26, 2020 at 3:40 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26/2/20 17:22, john leddy.net wrote:
> > I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF"...
> > 
> > My question is: How do you reach Consensus when the complaint is about how many milliseconds it takes to shoot down a proposal?
> 
> This document proposes a *major* change to IPv6. This group has been way 
> overly conservative even for very minor modifications to the IPv6 specs, 
> well within 6man charter.
> 
> Given that, I would have expected that a long time ago, a long queue of 
> folks (including the relevant AD) had made it crystal clear that this is 
> an update to RFC8200, and given the depth of the change, outside of the 
> charter of 6man.
> 
> It is in a way unbelievable the amount of energy we spend on polishing 
> maintenance updates to IPv6, but then fail to even recognize that what's 
> being proposes by this document is a major update to IPv6, out of the 
> scope of 6man (which stands for "IPv6 maintenance", and not for "IPv6 
> major surgery").
> 
> The amount of nonsense we have had to deal with, including this proposal 
> not violating RFC8200, this proposal being something else other than 
> IPv6, etc., has also been pointed out by others.
> 
> 
> > Is this about the proposal or the vendor involved?
> 
> It is about the proposal, indeed. I have sent dozens of emails 
> expressing technical concerns for this proposal. And the only reference 
> to "vendors" has been about the conjecture regarding why it has been 
> acceptable for us being fooled around.
> 
> Full disclosure: You didn't ask, but I don't mind being very open about 
> it: I don't work for any router vendor, or OS vendor, nor do I have any 
> kind of ongoing, past, or future contract with any of them, or any other 
> party involved in a competing technology.
> 
> I have technical concerns about the proposal (expressed ad nauseam), and 
> also concerns about how this process has been going on.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>