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

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 27 February 2020 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68A03A0D7B; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:14:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aoIJbjiv-apR; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08CAA3A0D75; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id a18so389972pjs.5; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:14:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VSSlxV35B1rpSEh1KVf/s1U+1CtjIrjJ8B9HoLR3p0s=; b=YkfOvAkbVchXUesfB+zjfkkBinvvH4xoCxUNw0ku5ROXOg510a3Zqjez9kOZ2geplp pzXu5Rw4NZLdKDGz1pvhPng9/H3Mz74fDX36IWxW9GvIy9s0DXCw9IRDxyutRGfJPgBd e/ROvdlBH2GGomamlvm/OrjNqFMkufpkd57+TzF1A2Ufn2wle0++v8e4li4CH9G5QhXj WqQVvWN1BC9zNurZlPkSQMjbyuebmF5HHAkEh/AD0ydxG6xfFeyG33+pdAuqfJJQcdd9 LrHJmVh1vKDPpDfNcvu6PKjy5F4xe+vTvQOKDRWoQvp/0iNkhnz1X5T6WbXltXGWR+BA 1MWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VSSlxV35B1rpSEh1KVf/s1U+1CtjIrjJ8B9HoLR3p0s=; b=JUF14uwoEawm7GfR3mbIMpwfugqh+/HBEPIamnN6SPWKX33oq5zrDbnqLOrhmzmwAS C1PxmudO0lTnyF0PTrCShb8IKpzvICgDAp/hw9MydMimIb2jqfa1uJcUJWm0wncJQE/Y 0hZgh6rd0FbXVSvrYmJUF+AclUBlV4EsErp7UymeLHRND6jY7ZTlpe72FtC/FdR8EaUk vrfnRCI2WvKHIX+KFA52G5JDs3dHVF5rpzxojY7hHMvmevsEdhV3P0kJY7F5kEG8Un28 mvsKIDYAOnEJzguF+a90weE1vP8eSFxEik1jeBcsttB+fqImnyu0Dq1Ial2Gr8thOzHm HdHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVaaQs2W2uuCh+kLxXgHieAx3B8AfOVEagT/Y5jPk4lYKsE2LmC XvUDVramcuW1MpgsC+DT0hE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzDDPLT2McACUObAgQ8IH+3SwI9xok+8orzmeXvZxQcwEfyFxm+jzWif3HR84GewQsbfpOTAw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:198e:: with SMTP id 14mr2069508pji.44.1582766051188; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g12sm4202358pfh.170.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>, Warren Kumari <>, John Leddy <>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, Bob Hinden <>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:14:05 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 01:14:17 -0000


On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Writing this without any hat,
> Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. 

The draft uses an undefined term ("pop") but it does *explicitly* state in a section called "Penultimate Segment Pop of the SRH":

>> S14.4.      Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extension header chain

If the word "penultimate" means what it means in every dictionary, this is in-flight removal of a header, and that is explicitly against RFC 8200, section 4, first paragraph below the diagram.

It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they do, I don't see how any WG Chair could assert rough consensus. An obviously organised +1+1+1+1 campaign is not consensus. I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I just delete it.


> Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
> Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
> -éric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <> on behalf of Warren Kumari <>
> ...%<...%<....
>     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...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------