IETF Logo Mail Archive

Learning from mistakes (was Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933))

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Tue, 03 March 2020 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.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 EE8EA3A0806 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=aZ9/vJos; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=zm6k5xWP
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 BzOATa85falK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 773E83A0802 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:21:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1474; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1583277692; x=1584487292; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=HuxwTltbL0RZdY5dQyCfdSqrTdo765seKU3AKAhYMoM=; b=aZ9/vJosUULrypzznAuCeJfZzDEdeSOkPKaczBRyRW9yGlStIMW4Lt30 eA1l5pdoNVSHRGT15QwO6mTIv5Mp66h0eXseoYNHMRJUfaSAH4RAF4a10 ZfoHGrZbB9/GzE13YqXydlQQYmLfOPDXVTkzNI6D6bUSZhTn7FuKxEdKj g=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:y2g+kBXtNOnYsapKiwvhK4vh4wTV8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtank3AtVEX1xo13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BpCAD85V5e/4sNJK1mHQEBAQkBEQUFAYF7gVRQBYFEIAQLKoQUg0YDimeCX5gVgUKBEANUCQEBAQwBAS0CBAEBhEAZgWUkOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVYBC4VjAQEBARUREQwBASsMAQsGARwBBQImAgQwFRIEDgUUDoMEgksDLgGiNgKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWCRIJWGIIMCYEOKowlGoFBP4ERJyCDC4EEgxIBEgGDMjKCCiKQZp86CoI8BIY9kCUcgkmYaI5ygU2ZfgIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSJncXAVZQGCQVAYDY4dGCCDO4pVdIEpjz8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,511,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="738476718"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Mar 2020 23:21:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 023NLKCX011979 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:21:21 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:21:20 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:21:20 -0600
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:21:20 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=azVfEFOhuTeuDAIBcSkeIzqIiaTmjjOG0kq+kHw2MMz5ptq7OB+KovbTIhRV2H6K7oaWC6vFHC9AjH1djjkKIejALoZ6Xy22Ps+dld3FXgYFqI9ec3BYjlXj0FIIGEWxfSrDK24hHyHKoB7V4s/+UAD6NewoAXIGBO3Uak4wKojSvYVdIMyht9A0h1lXz+0BBuj3u/UDIiVz6WjUODPQQ6QnyGyKfZrkZ12t2l5SAUZKaGU6RDCE40qH8CEb/J6iD1YnxuSj/4hKj9VURPaFD+V8K0KLCL20ZwIjkgds42vTLzv1ygPHYeT0YUOQ3huYfrovQoiP5OmiPXwQRUiHuQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;bh=HuxwTltbL0RZdY5dQyCfdSqrTdo765seKU3AKAhYMoM=; b=TpctVkU0QiiMvs2ssNQKYfTvbhWm1MPEK8D1Ll+zsG6TD/B0d23v0dZLrmO1PsPKdCQs46AB4Z1Y3C8oPH97TgdOmGqanXUxUlAop3TXhuHEo/Sqzc/1fu9hVMGXbt3E6qRZrd6xLgDMLUMZXdHv7PlucDtYHP20wtajASwHY61Vkn7jSLr1Op6RkxYjLp/+kcdVH0AjQdX7bD6SQl70/0VdmvT7wO4djDEUfHSLx2hnRw1yPk6UH4YLFrK+6Uly5UQBOr2y19evd6HpFYyWsrvM7YToyE+hAoCna5BbfSWXO7cgQFQT7hZNHenxB0xhkja5Q8qcmAsF2kTQsewbXg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=HuxwTltbL0RZdY5dQyCfdSqrTdo765seKU3AKAhYMoM=; b=zm6k5xWPo+q4n3POf1Q4YodTGyWFXtT76SqrGNK4b/sQt2uChqEgHpWyRY2bgoJElK+FWc8YDZYRiBOwhUkJBdRXA1Q8WWNoQTtPPUHk7rXrKtTM5BtG8U68/T5MYSuVtMLmYkeCfPadweMOQ6fGAWpq8zQ4pTPAIB1UKqDRx94=
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:10d::13) by DM5PR11MB1673.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:c::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2772.15; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:21:19 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::680d:e22e:72d5:67ca]) by DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::680d:e22e:72d5:67ca%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2772.019; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:21:19 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Learning from mistakes (was Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933))
Thread-Topic: Learning from mistakes (was Re: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC8200 (5933))
Thread-Index: AQHV8bJxj5dEWs8e4UOPEvue3dew9Q==
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:21:19 +0000
Message-ID: <0BFB07DE-01EE-42E9-B7A9-8ECF3CFA6F53@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.22.0.200209
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evyncke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:3cb4:f808:2fec:95a2]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 80f8723b-490b-4b24-a531-08d7bfc9944b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1673:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB16730F75E0DB75DED677B9CFA9E40@DM5PR11MB1673.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 03319F6FEF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(366004)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(199004)(189003)(33656002)(2616005)(478600001)(4326008)(6486002)(4744005)(2906002)(15650500001)(36756003)(71200400001)(6506007)(5660300002)(81156014)(8936002)(316002)(81166006)(8676002)(6512007)(66556008)(76116006)(86362001)(91956017)(186003)(66946007)(64756008)(6916009)(66476007)(66446008)(53546011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1673; H:DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: jZxmDD3pkokhjdLrmMnaQUmz+tIns+9hiyiC/XNq9GJLDLNxr8N9rgfHKK2cTECi3HZeUSEmjf5CouuwJl3E6VEOEN3fDcaH6IE/fP+7MuRndHDD3oh6XXNAKQfShFHSYiKGoAlfz+kghqP7Cum+CE+8zB6yfk1xnHpHdZrJojvVKjEVf+N8fD7ZS/DYNXkI/3QrXg+1ZSyD+oV+wVxTEkolV1gLfC/PBrbjOhCNHV9fYinRljVPfXLbDI5ap84V/OGF9Z34NplZrAHGBRlBc0IfaGt0ohtie9CexF4YuZVpsGo/wva1Pb4rmousDa2+a79q/9xtVFedcUYu49l3nxjYowQi9h/CEtJQY4R/ssiLPvmONSdGX8crtUm0lhKCE0ksVfe1dXCsQoBYZWCDU1MuF0N2atyV93+vb4VhUc/DaEj2YFPgOBRzBGyBQG91
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: HoY3F4nqLlw3KmEGbXRcjhYwEYHdMDTiOgeSGyUhvUiJpx+JKXGDzsniV3nh9ewFVZfFfhCap2JtTFzZ1pdCCDStJbAyabLGr/qtsF8oTf0dyFPeNwyCcqbkeFMPF4yKW7bhYQVGfJfROhlVDIG6odu7uTkIxhK7mWw3cLeT6gfFy7ljMEzq4kD4CwIXLNM/I6xAP9LnnjIWj1kVE9OVzw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C250C90C4CA6D74EBF09D09C409D38B4@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 80f8723b-490b-4b24-a531-08d7bfc9944b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Mar 2020 23:21:19.2792 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Iftr39d+u2wWt8s+18ro0noB+XDOCnFMGGE3aHCJrUVpIZWX4IhutM8ePZ97i2ETWZktvdoqvc5FyuPZAVBMkg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1673
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yuZCkbPV55t_ojnX54k2Q4A5jjk>
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:21:34 -0000

Fernando, my friend, 

Look below for Eric> [Original email thread elided to keep it short]

Best regards,

-éric-hoping-to-keep-learning-from-my-mistakeS

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 at 23:56

    On 3/3/20 18:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    [....]
    >> It seems to me that the bigger question is whether there would be
    >> consensus to update RFC8200 to allow whatever SPRING wants to do.
    > 
    > SPRING is not asking for an update to 8200; their claim is that it
    > already allows the PSP action. You might disagree, of course.
    
    FWIW, segment-routing-header also argued that en-route insertion was 
    allowed.

Eric> when authors change their mind based on the community feedback, then I ***respect*** them.
Eric> As we all know, the approved / to-be-published SRH does not mention header insertion anymore for a long time ... (your sentence was indeed in the past tense ;-) ).

    ....%<....%<....

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email