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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

John,

> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:09 PM, john leddy.net <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud hummers.

To repeat what has been said before, the way to do this is to write a draft that defines how these constraints could be relaxed and build a consensus around that.  This has not been completed.

We had a constructive discussion on this topic at IETF 106, it’s recorded in the minutes at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-6man-01.txt

I have not seen any further discussion after IETF 106.

Bob



> 
> 
>> On February 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming
>> in the IETF", especially Sections 3 & 6 (it is a short document, you
>> should read the whole thing, but pay special attention to these
>> sections).
>> 
>> It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
>> -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
>> - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
>> category...
>> 
>> W
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:01 PM John Leddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 in support of moving the document forward.
>>> 
>>> John Leddy
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Zafar,
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ …
>>>>> implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been documented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status/
>>>> 
>>>> I think the proper question is there a consensus to advance this document.
>>>> 
>>>> There seems to be questions about its relationship with RFC8200.  I am not seeing this as being resolved.
>>>> 
>>>> Bob
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>> idea in the first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
>> of pants.
>>   ---maf