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

Sander Steffann <> Mon, 02 March 2020 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902C53A10D8; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:03:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TKPpilKBY4Fl; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:03:27 -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 C3F103A10BD; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:03:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0230D49; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:02:54 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1583179371; bh=JFOOOhwhkECnFc1gTaC vCzBWRptgOV8dCt7uSByMoMA=; b=oC+Y2xt9NAbXxmxt2mBF81MogynKrryHho2 sdSe8bbaWlZMUHqc2EVXtzRNJpcP6LwiCvb8VZ3fpqJHPW46PiReaxHpfhGcb7aA zVH+VnG9W7zC09eRf7b123hnsEIqQsU3o1XxDw60pbZNQi1FTELqdsMg/jWBXpsS nnym1ot4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id O-2sWMmBHTIb; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:02:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:2022:41af:c4f2:3aef] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:2022:41af:c4f2:3aef]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C2303C; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:02:51 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B457B667-99FA-4D33-A8C8-35A14720AE5A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:02:48 +0100
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3C8297=5F1583155968=5F5E5D0B00=5F8297=5F207=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD4F8F=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?=
Cc: SPRING WG List <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>, 6man WG <>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E_=3C5518=5F1582908787=5F5E594573=5F?= =?utf-8?q?5518=5F436=5F1=5F53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA=40OPEXC?= =?utf-8?q?AUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CC8417F71-D61E-42AC-831E-B85269D5D4A5=40steffann=2Enl=3E_=3C829?= =?utf-8?q?7=5F1583155968=5F5E5D0B00=5F8297=5F207=5F1=5F53C29892C857584299CB?= =?utf-8?q?F5D05346208A48DD4F8F=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Einfra?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eftgroup=3E?=
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:03:37 -0000

Hi Bruno,

>> Wait, what?!  There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the IETF or any other consensus based forum...
> By advance this document, I meant start the WG LC. Which is about collecting comments on the document.

I think you are confused. This document has been in WG LC since December… I think many of us read "advance this document" as "declare consensus on WG LC".

> The situation is that there was and is a single chair. I'm personally ok to not proceed with any adoption call or last call while there is no other co-chair. Note that my AD never asked for this.

I'm glad you confirm that no consensus has been declared. That seems the appropriate state at the moment.

>> Based on the discussions on the mailing list (including questions on why PSP is so important that we can't take it out for now which have never been clearly answered by the authors) I can't see you can possibly declare consensus.
>> If there is going to be an appeal I will certainly put my signature on it.
> This is you right to appeal to the IESG.

Now that we know that consensus hasn't been declared and the document is still in LC I think appealing would be premature :)

> Note that appealing to the IESG is exactly what I'm proposing to do with regards to the reading of RFC 8200.

Getting that feedback would indeed be helpful.