IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 DACBA3A0D4C; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 10SXvrVE8Oer; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (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 456263A0D1D; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id m1so6202498pgk.1; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=94csZJ+LrQcIAHrSWdiAsGkTZIjc1y1FdMvjplWLtv8=; b=H6bkk5pjOdkjJqkTfYxdMUr0i8JFQ2F/33lnqXt5slR0zywGFje4R8SfE7XU8Orm9X 2EeJNmXsGo8pXxt1ki+eKVfsgl9n7BbEIxathLhIILQVdYO5TKsWv6yWDDQwzDPHVu2g XfParGyYzB5WE9zICmI5gBIi/U8/g33dIJG5jRbG+JqqOKAJ3KsoWhXTGPHukpkyVw0D xX9q8PTt8s8+n3V9vkWyeJgCRLjsjOoRHY1Hyh/twIW+XPA2CUn9eR+e13aSwZOMia57 vlOY3rcraJ6vFaoLLGFE4YaCy5gn9wNEfnnT70DozEk2vPGw9pAkHMuKdoC8z1EsDj0b o2Eg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=94csZJ+LrQcIAHrSWdiAsGkTZIjc1y1FdMvjplWLtv8=; b=hZRd89h1l++cxp2dOrWqjSY+J7z/jmE2zyo4tPic6gM9aKjvR7+cCcxqx7GlGQUQG6 v2fHuO3/eTiPM79pGLEBy2IQnKNAQ7XQsjUK4vfd0rR99ePOGzGWfyLylQ3FbyVr91In pU9wdgRGAxr5+1NtNq9KDMH09mI5d0Ck5UkLZO0WYPSkd1nief6QIlcxUeMOlS0zE9mB TdZDhgNBkvaTeQi6kbAotGBG7erYiwRY/LtmuIPt3znALW812MhqU/FD8SHAZ6sO12J/ L3II6/kJNp9sxf/lrikjGlxtnAUu4waG+yMwUAplMHa8Z3dOYpqif9qDXZHJ9kSh3zhd Qv7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hiMwKx6tLywgw0zcQk6XjinnsN65I5wN7zlRbYj0alXxNnyqt gysho8XPtuXEMBTgTyaGJdWc3ipa
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxX6eHS1rbAqD9dNIMwMGJ09J4oJrD6tzmETHaZhhLn04/zflKm+LDCNw9GEF5jA0VNGMfAuA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2b4:: with SMTP id q20mr5742565pfs.131.1590617316372; Wed, 27 May 2020 15:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([165.84.12.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j13sm2869830pfe.48.2020.05.27.15.08.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 May 2020 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
References: <75BF2317-5D28-4038-ABB1-31C588ACD165@cisco.com> <DM6PR05MB6348D86E8BE339067C5238E4AEB10@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <30C37AC0-B03A-45B1-BE0F-7E185361BBBC@liquidtelecom.com> <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b8cd530c-e07b-f74f-0f58-43414441b6ef@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 10:08:30 +1200
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: <CAOj+MME+kkfTKFQaS1zvW7wgQvLqui6jFQH9-eai6eY32t9fmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/h-A_329gzppep_KDJlMLTy-47pg>
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, 27 May 2020 22:08:47 -0000

On 28-May-20 09:50, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> I don't think this is about killing innovation. After all no one is saying you can not use it in your network. 
> 
> WG acceptance calls 

Adoption is not acceptance. At least half the messages on this topic are written as if we were in the middle of a WG Last Call.

> are evaluated in terms of WG rough consensu if significant number of members of WG find a proposal useful and if they are willing to work on it. 

Indeed. Exactly. Not in the least about consensus that the proposal is ready for approval. Just that it is ready for discussion and, as you say, that there are people willing to work on it.

> It seems clear that other then one vendor and very few individuals majority of the WG members do not support the adoption. 

That's for the WG Chairs to evaluate, and I expect them to evaluate singing in chorus appropriately. Also, and this is not a grammatical quibble, we don't have "members". We have participants, and we don't count votes.

> I am not against CRH. But what I am against is that CRH/SRm6 authors already bounced back via SPRING doors so they have chosen to try to enter via 6man window. That is not proper style for any proposal.

I agree that CRH is not in scope of the SPRING charter as it stands today ("the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6)"). But let me say again that we should hear the opinion of the routing ADs.

Regards
    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email