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

"Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com> Thu, 27 February 2020 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pcamaril@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 5E9A03A0BB6; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:47:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 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_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=Q+InYSkW; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=rpW2DB21
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 mwN-0r3Af1wp; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A55A13A0BAE; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 12:47:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3540; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1582836440; x=1584046040; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=D5ENXCsqo07vs14QU9zd3mTMbIKkX70frV6UgvkF4fE=; b=Q+InYSkWNyHS4BAUbtIEF7tJuX08KA4COoFvAl6KJuvIRaqSe/M3dzFf FCNUic9uf0MnTVmdgcejm4dgdaGICD79sAiKyB4kInho/Al2oD/k8YnHG vyM83FRmxq7eT5k2OMZcXd2DShzdfFr9NngHSJ0hr8e9uchr+VxR5Kc41 g=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AuWLmEBzzAUCjqQ7XCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5YhWN/u1j2VnOW4iTq+lJjebbqejBYSQB+t7A1RJKa5lQT1?= =?us-ascii?q?kAgMQSkRYnBZudAkT+JeTrawQxHd9JUxlu+HToeUU=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CyAACBKVhe/4YNJK1mGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYF7gVQkLAWBRCAECyoKhAqDRgOKZ4I6JZgUglI?= =?us-ascii?q?DVAkBAQEMAQEtAgQBAYRAAheBcSQ4EwIDDQEBBQEBAQIBBQRthTcMhWMBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgESEREMAQE3AQQHBAIBCA4DAwECAQICHwcCAgIwFQgIAQEEDgUigwSCSwM?= =?us-ascii?q?OIAEDpRACgTmIYnWBMoJ/AQEFhQ0YggwJgQ4qjCUagUE/gREnDBSCHi4+axk?= =?us-ascii?q?Bg0aDETKCLI1egwefNQqCPJZlHIFamVREqXMCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWkigVhwFTs?= =?us-ascii?q?qAYJBUBgNjh0YIIM7ilV0AoEnjHoBgQ8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,493,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="731013457"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 27 Feb 2020 20:47:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 01RKlJ9W019834 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:47:19 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:47:18 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:47:17 -0500
Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:47:17 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=SQWBIjxHuvJEquF2yHbwpXVK1KnJRFHQOQu6hnCZL9HIL4Z1Ktvlf207cLytTPx367RbP7aGrr0HgXC1IfZoUxiEv8jVJG+QIwoNGaVkwD/o4geDcDPq1WbNvPqLm/pAVn5tUlNiIj4Bk/TOyh8Lp3NSbo3l5HZJlEVxV/GT40xxCweU2kn54ESGbjbH7NKxPziNtVEya5Qk13a1B6KxhTu2L92HHHdKU6nyAagQG6OJdQL8PBAC5Mq9rm1W8m3+9rMzdeoVhog3a1/sVjUjwQUnDIAAnLZBT99K/x0uQ8pAlKa+3irj3CdjlFyX6DONB8tF3C4RhTU6KpLZ7bFS9A==
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=D5ENXCsqo07vs14QU9zd3mTMbIKkX70frV6UgvkF4fE=; b=ZAVu1CG7tOTfM/5Wgwyj1QLzGNQqIHcVrgD8OcEvBTGDyU+jtgXOzpgCklsowq6WsBUB18ci4sfMfCuAVUwblQPK+CiavRu7stPfxIyo6cpDnWdRMj0LaYOFRqz4D4/LMse9bFh5F1S2KLYMKAzZyHoTPxMmjGttlpudRgjV0FT2bbvcJLBptVbfKZd8g/3AXuWGg4JmVsDOICXdWvBmvicNbg0bBf9Cpw4kXiyDTz2hmA77Mprt0KIfvIl5Y6UqJolPoVvUExI0345inlYX7Zv9L7NDRT7wtAQmQxvyt7/abn79klDlJmjF0Sf/hywQG2zm0GjCnnBBzKN8RCnW3w==
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=D5ENXCsqo07vs14QU9zd3mTMbIKkX70frV6UgvkF4fE=; b=rpW2DB21q11Hig9Qympnjk9g1KY/KzthyB4iYXJySLamyqYshfV+8lg4zHlIeO6AlKZj3ZRt/UEt3CHCC5uc2uuJLjqCASfZVoorYFsi3GEApgiE2Brvv4sE0d87HwQV4n28AbgbdKDB0M/sVRmmqqTvbhMx7ctTghSBtz/RlxY=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.169.234.8) by MWHPR11MB1566.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.56.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2772.14; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:47:16 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e481:a191:e31:f948]) by MWHPR11MB1374.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e481:a191:e31:f948%12]) with mapi id 15.20.2772.012; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:47:16 +0000
From: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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: AdXtUHCBczz/925MQSaI7w9wOHJRdgACBA6AAAVmrgAAADvnAAARwByA
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:38:48 +0000
Message-ID: <1B8870B5-D09C-4946-A752-1B7E0145F9B6@cisco.com>
References: <6B803B308679F94FBD953ABEA5CCCCD701089509@dggema524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <6E7A3022-DEC7-4E35-9A56-0F708CD41180@fugue.com> <C69945CF-0ED0-4CCB-96F6-03DA533A41B6@bell.ca> <66327512-43CE-47CB-A5BD-10E5D8F71FD8@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <66327512-43CE-47CB-A5BD-10E5D8F71FD8@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
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=pcamaril@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [213.4.210.210]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4ebded40-7e31-43e9-efa3-08d7bbc63af2
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB1566:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB15661328390574278E3D59BCC9EB0@MWHPR11MB1566.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:4502;
x-forefront-prvs: 03264AEA72
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(376002)(136003)(346002)(366004)(396003)(189003)(199004)(8676002)(71200400001)(66476007)(6666004)(316002)(8936002)(91956017)(64756008)(478600001)(66946007)(54906003)(36756003)(81156014)(5660300002)(66446008)(81166006)(66556008)(76116006)(86362001)(6916009)(6512007)(6486002)(26005)(186003)(53546011)(4326008)(2906002)(33656002)(2616005)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB1566; H:MWHPR11MB1374.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: wZA6XYzPtDM/uzNGj7/ialKBMFfSmKlBhApG9o5w/grC3tYtUdRJsPus0ZyLWpFWxPnELTOSAIEYSOj1eT3S5BT5vf6YgNgGTTk5jsNVEnziz7+li96EmP0wBVFLbVVTBBuXZqIMHRGHz9DXVzohGihSiFZHMi6jwYV8R4aTU6G45aNzWE/qgtLEEpfRtg7woxJN0g+KE71xVqaW0Dr+QuPIQPhh/mVXSQLk8xZJTxqDii6n3IFklO7CXvURYsvfCqHyLsOreu96eUuwWvl2tZhbnIhSb5OEGq9/mr6wfbaUaT3yVp+2u22AFBQfoUED2C/PDznW8xoiyAp65RKk1jjNTDHz4Is4CitnosBZet1Z8bUycRl7NNrel9guyvbHMEUSn76fz2UGZehS6+qJrbXrXeoEF72IyEjFXjZ+By7zUSp325FX2fXzIGgqE73J
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: MfqRfUc90qBCDqLrxxYiRTy/yEOuWMBDp06UtgZA7PQ1dONnQnsvgu+1DzAuCjaXRaCqXNJpuzVk7q6huz5w4ceSWWFkM5WIJBE7t1WuKxHIAr3O6yA2RuoC59PkSovkgMaT0ryCfbYgEpmu7Y+4pw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <073173C83BFADC4C890A363FD6BD4271@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4ebded40-7e31-43e9-efa3-08d7bbc63af2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Feb 2020 20:47:16.1093 (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: HG66EKd3ggLpqHYtbH0wjI4o/pGnzEYtzmQkSXqPLPPf8eWyNMCYWk6Hv6RPip+u5hsMW/Nq0g1RXc8m3kITSQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB1566
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/eDpRkeIM17BzFfeFy15773Xcp5I>
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, 27 Feb 2020 20:47:23 -0000

Ted,

> The situation here is that all the objections appear not to have been addressed, and that agreed-upon supporting work has not been done (and nobody wants to do it).

Let me recall:
1.- draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming contained a section about SRH insertion by a transit node
2.- There were objections on whether this is allowed
3.- There was an agreement of:
3.a.- Move the SRv6 behaviors that relied on SRH insertion by a transit node from the NET-PGM document into a new document
3.b.- Have the previous draft with a normative reference to a 6man draft where the details of Extension Header insertion by a transit node discussion would happen at 6man

3.a has been done (draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion). This work is waiting progress on 3.b.
3.b. is work in progress in here (draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion).

Neither 3.a nor 3.b are the object of the discussion that we are having here. 
The discussion that we are having is about PSP which has nothing to do with that.

I would suggest that before you jump to your conclusion you refer to the SPRING working group mailer archives where extensive discussions have happened resulting in draft updates to address comments. 

Cheers,
Pablo.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:09
To: "Voyer, Daniel" <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>
Cc: "Maojianwei (Mao)" <maojianwei@huawei.com>om>, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>om>, "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>om>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>rg>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>rg>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Resent from: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
Resent to: <cf@cisco.com>om>, <pcamaril@cisco.com>om>, <john@leddy.net>et>, <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>ca>, <satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp>jp>, <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Resent date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:08

    On Feb 27, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Voyer, Daniel <daniel.voyer@bell.ca> wrote:
    > You should rephrase that - 1 objection can’t prevent the rest of us to move forward hence why sometime we need to go with a rough consensus.
    
    Rough consensus means all the objections have been addressed, not that everyone agrees.  The situation here is that all the objections appear not to have been addressed, and that agreed-upon supporting work has not been done (and nobody wants to do it).