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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 27 February 2020 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C06A3A0A48 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:42:00 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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 i5znEqovOuID for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360BE3A0A4E for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:41:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u124so544699qkh.13 for <>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:41:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=qPFB3LM9YGoiqqWnthfSVXrJ44jdxR/BRJMqimPLORo=; b=h1Xx+OWA556YEwDwlF5i8p51tYtb/V9VivnhXxVOTF3Kxqm6o4nMbZaj3HDRfLWUoN c0ztuIYqeu2T76BVE40nmfIMo5pxLPLzKjLne8D3+zO/i4wpu5tYzGqebyctpDWR3X77 sGAJKouBWTRvXVEfWvNBSjmNwNqp/TQJ1c8F+4xPgXra0yDQ0dxGpG59qsSHIaWAjooQ OerH4nDaOkiXAYInYNPBR3n7vJiOeLhmmqSlDTUjG34D11ZOtI6bwRk7SvZ9APdE0HBK nS3lS270A49vKjanV/9TugVKaJrNKJMHEkzdtfTrrFLilEB5uNZuAp5BdFB3so+LdUTT 2Y7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=qPFB3LM9YGoiqqWnthfSVXrJ44jdxR/BRJMqimPLORo=; b=Sg3lc3/vtiVDacGWZ9w1Cxar3ZCha4GwCI04t8hTguHT4SBy8bhgSl8Vv0+3bRmnF/ qCIxVnsK9mN6ga1LNSbff+/y3j9kNvjud0bG7rKm/6E2zXl6OMTI1e7tpDYwjA4/gBXG kxkmvcTHrF9gv8tGvePdGiTUpv/j9/eedm7lL1QzHV0+kOhH/T3k9VXo0FzLw4/CfVxA EtX9SxycDsS2wHP34NfcUwREsMBlDWdIMjrN/se4jb/Lp6Dk3fw5QVtqQE43u8RhjPYl 9XeJCndSP3yjfmtRJHX4RQ7EzDNnkT89WSd7Brz1QB2+KxibvXOmAIuZCzo/Lab0ufJx LB7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW5zK//Mo8/3WJYLufthOe1V42b8Sio+8HY9dGd0P205m3Y0tk4 I/0jB4xs3SM0jOqK8Yo4tlpgEQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwjxF+Rov/bTyKAp2vE9jCy1oWBw7cm2YYaA0cEGqwDzYu/UPrPS0PBaRtj/KKD5ODimaHIxQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:c11:: with SMTP id l17mr1054073qki.53.1582832517283; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:41:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:50ee:a3fe:ec9d:4bdb? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:50ee:a3fe:ec9d:4bdb]) by with ESMTPSA id a18sm2705507qkg.48.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:41:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FEBA4609-D2FD-4E1D-9B43-A3BBB2571128"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3622.0.6\))
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:41:55 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>, "" <>, Bob Hinden <>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" <>, Warren Kumari <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3622.0.6)
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 19:42:02 -0000

On Feb 27, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:
> Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether the working group even cares about the document.  I have had several cases of calls for adoption or WG last call where there was almost no response on the mailing list.  In the absence of decent indication, I as chair feel compleed to say "no, I do not see enough support to adopt / advance / ... this document".
> In that situation, even +1s can help.  (And yes, I do watch for the case of all the +1s coming from the same company as the author, and then start judging whether they are folks who participate, along the lines Warren outlined.)

In my experience this is actually the wrong thing to do.  If the work was chartered, and a bunch of people go off and do the work, and then by the time the work is done the working group has lost momentum other than those people, saying “Oh, I guess nobody cares, we won’t publish” is the wrong outcome.