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

"Voyer, Daniel" <> Thu, 27 February 2020 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25F63A0786; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z3quxPwphXmx; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8BEB3A0784; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 05:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2020 08:02:05 -0500
Received: from (2002:8eb6:120e::8eb6:120e) by (2002:8eb6:120c::8eb6:120c) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:02:04 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::75af:23bf:bdc5:ef10]) by ([fe80::75af:23bf:bdc5:ef10%22]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:02:04 -0500
From: "Voyer, Daniel" <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
CC: "Maojianwei (Mao)" <>, Lizhenbin <>, "" <>, SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>
Thread-Topic: [EXT]Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AdXtUHCBbvZKbuXWME2X5fQfMDHe0AAMfkSA///XZGQ=
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:02:04 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C69945CF0ED04CCB96F603DA533A41B6bellca_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
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 13:02:12 -0000

On Feb 27, 2020, at 05:27, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

The IETF serves users, not “industry”.
Wrong - it’s not the users that fund you to be here, it’s the industry - everything is about the money
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.
You should rephrase that - 1 objection can’t prevent the rest of us to move forward hence why sometime we need to go with a rough consensus.

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.
Yep, rough consensus

Clearly in this thread, along with the few presentations out there, there is more than 10 vendors that has implementation of SRv6, which is time and money invested, and there’s few operators running this already (time & money), so its in the field already. I expect the working to be conscious of that and “quickly” resolved this situation.


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.


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


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,




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:
External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints