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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 27 February 2020 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407B03A0802 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:27:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=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 HTMzTN6IyFyB for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 726AB3A0816 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:27:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v25so1853209qto.7 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:27:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=nScLw5WXVeG7/oYQoD+Ttgde4bgdFGoHjwndT36IAwc=; b=RnAFgk9I9jgQrro3BxI3M1k4H1dF59Z1xX3jo/yKJHzxBQoSgSqV+q9eQTSFcwzFnD GtBGwVK24AWYv6y40VOrn2NEhNLPvZCI7hV2xA+Vsf9uHwWzJY1yCmWgEwlLfNluzjVo ZBxGIYIQkmrVZeEykb3AtjwO7GqSj6z2exSuj3ym5irWG1TQWVWrgaDMHf4lL9nQzdGk X6sVkN0Ia8vcMbNd5/BsUg8uXLtIwpC8UVPxd2hSdH6MmoemAUVmy14zHYBSljnMqY3i mnMbd95sG3+w69xRWL7E4UL3PxdjvBx3gde2k0nJA0SIJFrZFQHkV4NeEgY5e4qY63hJ SeTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=nScLw5WXVeG7/oYQoD+Ttgde4bgdFGoHjwndT36IAwc=; b=N1TCKzTol5CU9r+bJVKfBDzueJLWoy0pT1xyafAvXsgbgyrOsFGB+kAZsZVUaVcCxm 8YaBOAgTqoakJTM8zvsFJmCAuB7wgIWygSIaUmGNF5qxiyUXipoEWA11+uhOig7tP2HW uyvj9DWQT3KO+bildR9X7IqKkj8ZwXMHevRW/72nV3vNPb3yaa7okWhaX/o9FpIuKohO XNFDYxbDzpWJP5hSGNXJniWkB0R/eTJjrKBe6Jo3OVvINu4HgoYY+C5dnLQETsLuw4wf +rCjFNhZ96n5MEMIVROYpxod1516VLXfXpZbrqvfP7gn7lUOIklj4HNFRprtlspexQUQ PLVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVxP2qSPJmPHjO2OTGl9iDybMrhkqdp1IpRCk8ZoZYJyRjUVLrg dRinwdaJABnMzGV9SiqcrXqJ839/nso2dw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwMbLv1O05YZue0hM+RxQJGdg4TwTZSWuTw75yUtlkddhCgXE/ZpiGc1DDZufU9EBoyRa3AxA==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:72d5:: with SMTP id o21mr4139426qtp.79.1582799247106; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:7979:12c4:1a61:6e1? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:7979:12c4:1a61:6e1]) by with ESMTPSA id w21sm3059395qth.17.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 02:27:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-091A3FCC-4E50-40E2-9A72-4C974B7718DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:27:25 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Lizhenbin <>, "" <>, SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: "Maojianwei (Mao)" <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A225a)
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 10:27:38 -0000

The IETF serves users, not “industry”.  The IETF does not promote. Our job is to make the internet work interoperably. Brian has raised an objection that could be answered, but has not been. It is inappropriate to say that this document has passed last call. 

In my experience, when it is hard to get consensus in situations like this it is because there is a wish to not address a concern that has been raised, not because the concern could not be addressed or should not have been raised. It may feel unreasonable, and like an imposition, but it is not. It is part of the process. 

Rather than trying to steamroll over the objection, why not simply answer it?

> On Feb 27, 2020, at 04:30, Maojianwei (Mao) <> wrote:
> Hi friends,
> Internet standard is aimed to promote deployment and innovation, but not to be a barrier.
> While this WG LC has been extended again and again,
> if we have reached an agreement that SRv6 can bring many advantages for our network in future,
> we should shelve the dispute and promote industry.
> Meanwhile, we can have a discussion in the future about how to resolve the problem, bis 8200 or what else.
> So, I agree we close the WG LC now, and go ahead.
> Cheers~
> Mao
> 发件人: spring [] 代表 Lizhenbin
> 发送时间: 2020年2月26日 19:55
> 收件人:; 'SPRING WG List' <>
> 抄送:; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
> 主题: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> Hi Bruno and WG,
> The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week. In the process all the comments have been resolved while some issues is raised again and again with little value.
> On the other hand, there have been multiple commercial implementation and inter-op test and almost 20 deployments for SRv6 which justify the solution proposed by the draft in practice.
> We sincerely request to close the LC of the draft and move forward.
> Best Regards,
> Zhenbin (Robin)
> From: [] 
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 1:15 AM
> To: 'SPRING WG List' <>
> Cc:; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
> Subject: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> Hello SPRING,
> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version, and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are only spring specifics.
> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into parallel independent discussions)
> Thank you,
> Bruno
> [1]
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------