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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Wed, 26 February 2020 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 F362F3A115C; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:40:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 BRZ4YHWXQZVi; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-f51.google.com (mail-wr1-f51.google.com [209.85.221.51]) (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 365363A1168; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-f51.google.com with SMTP id z3so228572wru.3; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:40:09 -0800 (PST)
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; bh=tAe0CQ1eldWsrquzYwYedvD++9+c2We2U7zhrmyNhM4=; b=fg6uSuwsmHZlxMnwL20/wnTomPePOWzZGV1qahmSS1f+TvJmBBPqszpVRyZAv0ToGK Rz30HDxLzvZF5C3XpymZcE/sgVtKgyJ8j5K390MR03ReUE0DTs7R5USXfsDivoDBpkl/ pHix+dA5THEsUpgecudvlUlz2xZnQRyZEccoBusivEDiTCvUORRepB5JKS538qW/6WFu NN9pKevYq1VHb2dD/lJsqbWedaIKTyxSE5ViM8Oc+9HHnO7YMzuBHYwvCbolAKt/Au1/ WmcHTaWa0QJBBCOyLPFNx1vb82SuwMKd/JoNt4LkBTgD7uO2Iwp5f6sNLZOtkbLYSU6o pjXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXjTWBbpnBDux7cjsiyLrRcDLYEhOq5riRjDmcXCp9V44RkqOUB H9mqswekJO85NKLJTlzXyfMmX332kSsqUfemz0A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxm8nsg/GsokdcEy5IdIaN+6+IHtGXUuzBFPcJz/qQaHk0XTIe53Guj7XtQ9c3HB9FsKSxpMIFmHIpn1ULTBYM=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fd0e:: with SMTP id e14mr220758wrr.127.1582746007473; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:40:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D9364A1C2@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4038_1582727829_5E568295_4038_168_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DB381A@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <8ca30058-b8cf-cba4-524d-99b34e2b01d6@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <8ca30058-b8cf-cba4-524d-99b34e2b01d6@gont.com.ar>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:39:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqebPnJUoSL0KYCabh9tY5iMSFmq_Cg=7oxy4xsrOjs9Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: bruno.decraene@orange.com, Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mBYnShrxxWXD0s0IiZ-lJ47eMCI>
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 19:40:11 -0000

At Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:14 -0300,
Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> wrote:

> So... is the plan to ship a document that violates RFC8200?

Please forgive me asking some clarification question that seems to be
obvious for others: which part of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10 violates RFC8200?  From
a quick read of it, Section 4.16 seems to describe the removal of an
extension header from an IPv6 packet at a forwarding node.  Is that
the one referenced as a violation?  Or is it something else, or are
there others in addition to 4.16?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya