Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 2/3/20 21:09, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> [Discussion moved to 6man)
> 
> At 10:01 AM 02-03-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> That's a comment on a future decision,  not a decision that can be 
>> acted upon.
>>
>> Simple: what would have happened if Suresh had changed his mind, and 
>> "verified" the erratum? -- You'd have a spring document that you 
>> claimed to have wg consensus based on an incorrect assumption.
>>
>> i.e., the consensus outcome was sent based on an *assumption*, not on 
>> a decision.
> 
> I was reminded of the following on reading the SPRING discussions: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/VbT1OuHTouS9GrVR934EwOnzp64/

This email misses the number of employees from the same company -- 
similar to the "+1" effect we have seen in spring recently.



> The points which you raised (please see quoted text) can be go both 
> ways, i.e. favorably or unfavorably if it has to be considered 
> formally.  I would rate the erratum as "minor" within the context of the 
> dispute.  

At the time of rfc2460bis, folks were claiming that en-route 
eh-insertion/removal was not forbiden. Then the discussion was about 
whether to clarify it, or not.

Once the wg shipped the document, and during IETF LC, there was 
consensus that the clarification be added.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492