IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 C53053A0FB0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 22:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 WfbpAMxMq054 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 22:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4D43A0FAF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 22:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.150.150]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 0246F4Uv023208 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 22:15:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1583302517; x=1583388917; i=@elandsys.com; bh=9EktKVdndjm24ep/9htM2RsLLY/p1ewrzfuLeO3ceh0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=dd3S2UMLrNSljbloyJMDcPRagS5QqO+DWUdyTAFxEpUuHeBGYrvQ5rbEzt4nPViO3 Xv2ptqT0CsIkm4p7PPc3jCcEx0M9fATJvPqq7ezhYKYTF+g6VZxPoERZ9B24p/BvcG bqnr7kTt+aVEiO1ifjyWUQi+KrcGW8s6gQK7xwoE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200303215001.0c7748d8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:10:18 -0800
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
In-Reply-To: <30385383-c6f6-2f9b-c372-c7a8c3fd3f24@si6networks.com>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5518_1582908787_5E594573_5518_436_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <C8417F71-D61E-42AC-831E-B85269D5D4A5@steffann.nl> <9b677b7c-fe52-dbae-7f83-2b5be5194325@gont.com.ar> <6.2.5.6.2.20200228132634.1060a610@elandnews.com> <23625_1583158579_5E5D1533_23625_379_8_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD5266@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup><4eb1e184-31ad-41c9-ded3-5aa7fb89ef96@gont.com.ar> <15096_1583170126_5E5D424E_15096_398_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD5E43@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <d5b5e59f-920b-68cd-800c-04c282deead3@gont.com.ar> <6.2.5.6.2.20200302154312.11583140@elandnews.com> <30385383-c6f6-2f9b-c372-c7a8c3fd3f24@si6networks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tJAeAnDv99sOFWsSVs2B1A5KufU>
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, 04 Mar 2020 06:15:27 -0000

Hi Fernando,
At 04:49 PM 02-03-2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
>This email misses the number of employees from the same company -- 
>similar to the "+1" effect we have seen in spring recently.

I'll skip the above unless you would like me to comment about it.

>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.

RFC 8200 is an Internet Standard.  If there was a clarification on 
in-flight header insertion/removal, I would say that the 
clarification is not clear.  On reading the recently discussions, it 
looks like there is a technical defect in that Internet Standard.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email