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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Wed, 26 February 2020 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.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 582443A145B; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:00:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.598 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CM1BlJBoJCwA; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x235.google.com (mail-oi1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D392E3A1451; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x235.google.com with SMTP id c16so1007824oic.3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:00:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OL32bdUB7eVX0+GPBy4hrwbqnIeymo1TQmft19XATU8=; b=svNC9sZ6XXSve47Da1TWmAl8gLGhgTKnioPM14ozIdsAyw76P/sZ7hNlhG8RMZPV7h jUXJiVZqYX3eHHz8Spsxvit6jxxLM9unG249HzN16nj6vEOuJkpw9zL/jSkixC5kY+F/ JlgxZHrOP6ozp7Vy/+FfXsqyDsNrIVqWVbr0xgFrUEyQ+cm6r7t8mRAaqf5ey23+AQ17 QtUWpljrblfy1qE4ElVkt9VgpxCl51iMnEF4VHVdOIXNbdnx8mEcEd9NxhPBEY3e9CpD r6NqwqCaassu6JkLWYvSWBy9v9N4vVMsZ20ilURibYWpRIipFZCOFNI2zflStqeF77ql eA/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OL32bdUB7eVX0+GPBy4hrwbqnIeymo1TQmft19XATU8=; b=EPNnHyzO1oByG3S5I6VDDnHtU4jXsD11tNaZLIUjU/bPatux3TQocVdp86OJYaoX5U 6Ve+I6rv0+57UBQvESx7VlA3D3g+8ksOQhJRb35WCW1cCTlR498qPgn2SsUDTSFVpZtQ tg1UKhuuFKNM6K23iXSWFZ55tlQkZ1HDijFDfLp2WdRh9RI/w8WU/s266H8LR/Vn+rqu gXQQcTwkZiMYHkZPV9EQhMacHLC+2X4/dwlvsvCt3WwwlfCmz0/tWNA3UVcHYJxoFL3O uu9Iodj/sBiAOQIhXvpK+zQqgK67sZ8AbttrBKE+9hLq735kD1VS1cM9mxzOUuJhTcHq /1AQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWaDkNHO0VYZP+nBn87Dzv+OdoeJ5+4X8OScs3XuWwbbsya8Fja EnKRobJ1W+WL4GDxxVR1l6k+v8cvvWAgxOyhYD+K3ik5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz/RyJ+X+EoIzkd669ks2xlMe+nX9LD3hviJ+NXaP15VVw0ctH6MyKTA05rvFhlxozrq0hZovhrw2/NmngsU10=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5746:: with SMTP id l67mr762019oib.60.1582750828090; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:00:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F88E3F76-DD4B-4807-A458-85FABFF20D96@gmail.com> <5D218BFB-0D6F-4F7D-858F-B571A67DC47F@leddy.net> <CAHw9_iJ_ipEvU0NUx44XbK0_DrLe_GRw6G=m+chK4wZcRP8BMg@mail.gmail.com> <907734565.529015.1582747778596@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <907734565.529015.1582747778596@webmail.networksolutionsemail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:00:01 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2znTaSrAFx1qOchQs_X4SXFb4GXSw1b3p2Lw_+ePFe-Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: "john leddy.net" <john@leddy.net>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fOUA4w12644vAF33XZS423mP5uU>
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 21:00:30 -0000

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 07:09, john leddy.net <john@leddy.net> 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.
>

If you think I'm against innovation with IPv6, then you haven't seen
my IPv6 formal and functional anycast address proposal -
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-6man-form-func-anycast-addresses-01.

draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10 doesn't say "Updates
RFC8200", nor does it provide any technical justification for PSP,
including comparison with the existing alternative.

As RFC 8200 is also one of only 92 full Internet Standards, and of
course has met the required criteria to be promoted to full Internet
Standard, fundamental changes to it have to be very significantly
justified and considered.

The SPRING WG are also supposed to be actively trying to avoid such
changes. From the charter:

"SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would
make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible,
existing control and management plane protocols must be used within
existing architectures to implement the SPRING function."

(+1 to everybody reading RFC 7282)

Regards,
Mark "Loud Hammer" Smith.

"What you allow, you encourage." - Michael Josephson.

>
> > On February 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> 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 <john@leddy.net> 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 <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Zafar,
> > > >
> > > >> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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
> > > > ipv6@ietf.org
> > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > ipv6@ietf.org
> > > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring