Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

["john leddy.net" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
>