IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Snac] Re: What is the timeline for draft-ietf-snac-simple (causing several MISSREF in 6MAN WG) ?

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 05 May 2026 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: snac@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: snac@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4B2E96F4D0 for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2026 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1778005762; bh=D2JssGW1zhYNx27xVgRUyEmoCTq+g5oXgzDEgoFPIyQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=TNhLEeLDpw+Lmp1kijRVre0ENREXQgWUhTNJoBdTYujwZ7E3wDg8S3DPYmaOLet4o eLIjcZHa/1PXM+Os3x0Yu545vfzeqQnAG2ltgoH1wUtsazP4yPGQ8Z3RaGt8Uc8OpB yYnzSnYcmMLXNp+OrK2LgIlTpWYVmDwkogahOM3A=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92h2Varebyxz for <snac@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2026 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1129.google.com (mail-yw1-x1129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1129]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71BB7E96F476 for <snac@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2026 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1129.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7bd5e373d07so50876507b3.2 for <snac@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 May 2026 11:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1778005747; x=1778610547; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=J8YA08vArlsNKRmWifJvbaWhpZT8kw6cyunzSB3dwbI=; b=ahAiCXUqk6xAc780lRNNfwqlwDpaavIEIsknBI1eNVpxNWmFzxj+bMLCKtgROQmz5C ayzdRK7KzwO+b6155QIb87JnE9QH6CyHzfGYiwsR5kwgy+pbRr+ikykmFdomy4KqPcns i/ibNV383HHH6g3cejFQzG2IGgqVfZ6gBKiQCpjPX81DMhUfbD5mmWuYeO+OJN9oQAc9 XvOfVU3svgb+w2zkHbcH94a4WyCIBr4CLv9camInCwyD+sckrimV+XWgI9QoqN9sDevz EVBA/HGLiuy3EFupSUWQSJOuH6SzuZB9eHWv5AgJy7i97ryIx4feaA4+N5wsvr4Ezh6w G1Ew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1778005747; x=1778610547; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=J8YA08vArlsNKRmWifJvbaWhpZT8kw6cyunzSB3dwbI=; b=UBXjvSiPK3dB5r3q7tEvbB9DzZjLSqgm0fu4mN1MMGMjT+j/6TU+mMZr6/Na6DYzVy v2tmDKOYjRAfEEYxeywo1YHcyoPv3DRMeHE3ohhioa/bkhFZyJSCp2PtNyL/aUIc6lXq wZr0CqNyjNc3fsy8pd6cYcUOo0uLvy4u/gQ/m1TqIgPrp4va0e8l+3APk7dv+ZbJvt0Z 4HQchTzIUvyLfLtmSLHxukXYjcvrQcGf6OiSGXGfZE0i2Nxtwsvt7AM6R3wnov2yALPn Kvpf+TO0gX4ovwYr9nrlzzffhB7kRJLDShwuHCU/ZoSX2EGiNKa8ZmOXVwezQsuggU71 ZVOg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/UDco4OeFDr0CCsJRzLKs+LPzCU5K7USk7xbg6+GNvveHILSNEcUNCpLJfXZ/8wSo00tYm@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy67L9eVvFO4jDSmSfCXOOkWmJca6i5pfhm9yYVNkPxGZDPZC8r L9FqMVDE1BNfCi4d6lvXtlWMsgCNSPgVVN6H0nrE02O+NchOPrb0vjKk
X-Gm-Gg: AeBDieuczHeRAQF73sUwEwE0X9lsWkpZdM1jTY5Z3iXJLFGjjvfVAsTvsYEmWXzoSlN ftqrW4DMwMcN/SwLmJ20igZ7dTkK5kkdLC9bGy7ll7a30IpZScXLHzTp9nmJMUfb5V4Z7e/LxpD dkJUfqY+qiaZVIYQUjkvGkVh1xnz2i9AIotiQeTgniXpVZVFv/uf7SGnTo5BBTbt8gurJCAfzuD zp9VbyyrGrljqImbWf7Nr5FAfk6Pp1Ezl6VH33pfQXHgMDDfKaJlDWsfLbYTwcQ40df/WUim63X /D0mBP8gJPhBoGkq0DSz7l2k0AtznwCDapkXWFCrdqvoszoV0xqz5/dhDJHeeZqKXwBGuitAJbV WD1q0wAo5YK2wNoKo2Dq1xtfNyEqpzz7Vdih0lUJ9utvuSfpnZ4cV7zZqVaWd110DfbBqf7F9eq yv8bTnEETdmNCh6AO9136goUB9ylmd/QIlkDPeOLooygbXeTwFOFkiuY5CuG6jUR1oH0o=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:60c3:b0:7bd:696d:5137 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7bdf5eb872emr3360997b3.41.1778005746785; Tue, 05 May 2026 11:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:1700:4383:c05f:1882:a393:e362:6190]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 00721157ae682-7bd6685bfd4sm67855117b3.33.2026.05.05.11.29.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 May 2026 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.600.51.1.1\))
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACMsEX-7gep7UNpVECqPynTdvZayFJYcv_zmasQREbt4MhqucA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 11:28:44 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1650F9D6-FA02-41EC-897A-ADCF82EA7E02@gmail.com>
References: <PH0PR11MB49665360922DCB68C1EB1EC0A9AAA@PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <cb481ce6-2350-4e2b-a884-75eb3dd2b322@app.fastmail.com> <PH0PR11MB4966F05D9D76E02E2016DDBEA9AAA@PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAFhLL-Y60LSfORynB0GbWa2EAgzX-wTQk+KkkdMjj14Js33Yqg@mail.gmail.com> <PH0PR11MB4966DCCE2271CE40683D436CA97AA@PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <edfedb31-77f9-412b-891a-794607599035@iotconsultancy.nl> <PH0PR11MB4966C2DA83CC374239C9F7E9A94EA@PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <a9bafa15-5bab-4778-8378-b1c65bfba73d@iotconsultancy.nl> <67716A6D-0E76-40C1-9931-6327BEB6FF59@fugue.com> <PH0PR11MB4966474C85C1537FFC533C96A952A@PH0PR11MB4966.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CACMsEX-7gep7UNpVECqPynTdvZayFJYcv_zmasQREbt4MhqucA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.600.51.1.1)
X-MailFrom: bob.hinden@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: max-recipients
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
Message-ID-Hash: KGMVBCSCY63LGYRHB7F5HOXNDDMYPTH2
X-Message-ID-Hash: KGMVBCSCY63LGYRHB7F5HOXNDDMYPTH2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 May 2026 14:28:28 -0700
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, Darren Dukes <ddukesietf@gmail.com>, "David (Zhe) Lou" <zhe.lou@huawei.com>, "snac@ietf.org" <snac@ietf.org>, Jonathan Hui <jonhui@google.com>, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Snac] Re: What is the timeline for draft-ietf-snac-simple (causing several MISSREF in 6MAN WG) ?
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussing problems relating to the automatic connection of stub networks to existing infrastructure networks. " <snac.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/snac/TJcpT1Q4A0BeY7UaPZxPmNtX91k>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/snac>
List-Help: <mailto:snac-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:snac-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:snac@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:snac-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:snac-leave@ietf.org>

Nick,

The updated RA flag draft is now in IETF last call, and I think SNAC has started a w.g. last call on the SNAC Simple draft that ends on May 15.

Bob



> On May 5, 2026, at 11:05 AM, Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net> wrote:
> 
> Circling back around on this - did we ever get some closure on the
> SNAC dependency tree? I believe there was hope for something in April
> to resolve the MISREF. Anything we can do to help?
> 
> nb
> 
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 6:08 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I have requested the IESG to approve the change proposed below by Ted on next IESG telechat, i.e., Thursday 2nd of April. Then, Jonathan can submit a revised I-D.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, I am requesting the SNAC chairs to schedule a virtual interim meeting in April to finalise the draft-ietf-snac-simple I-D and initiate a WG Last Call shortly after this interim. My understanding is that the I-D is 99% perfect and there are very few RFC that are 100% perfect (e.g., nearly 10,000 RFCs and only 103 STDs).
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> -éric
>> 
>> From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, 18 March 2026 at 09:51
>> To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
>> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, snac@ietf.org <snac@ietf.org>, Jonathan Hui <jonhui@google.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update@ietf.org <draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update@ietf.org>, Darren Dukes <ddukesietf@gmail.com>, David (Zhe) Lou <zhe.lou@huawei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Snac] What is the timeline for draft-ietf-snac-simple (causing several MISSREF in 6MAN WG) ?
>> 
>> On Mar 18, 2026, at 09:26, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> "The SNAC router flag with value '1' is to be used only by SNAC routers. A future specification will define the operation of a SNAC router. For example, [I-D.ietf-snac-simple] may be such a specification.
>> Any router that is not operating as a SNAC router MUST set the SNAC router flag to '0'."
>> 
>> 
>> I would say it more like this:
>> 
>> The SNAC router flag with value '1' is reserved for use by SNAC routers. The definition of what a SNAC router and when a SNAC router sets this flag is is out of scope for this document.  The SNAC router specification work in progress can be seen here: [I-D.ietf.snac-simple].
>> 
>> I.e., no need to be prognosticate.
>>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status