Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0AEA41284F for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 08:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 L55Q13V_q4Wy for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 08:12:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-dl1-x1232.google.com (mail-dl1-x1232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1232]) (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 B3673A412848 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 08:12:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-dl1-x1232.google.com with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11df4458a85so2348542c88.1 for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:12:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1767802349; x=1768407149; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tciGad/QzSMY95AFeb4TnECMWb1MTqg5xha1uh06VGQ=; b=jMHrkjKHct+/uSXsLK719W5MwK5Pj3CQxZZZwdw9jhOmDgNfydJQpjbfRsP7wzZ+yC H91fjhblpMBZYElbNo/O9OarjIs1adJ6EvgZouq9gTpx9XlCyeMcpfI6Qz7osLndqxFG KuwZl/V8vnkoeJcmV8a105JEcUSsIW9ChQpp/Lz4nTRNTxJz+o1F/pTk2nBTWBmAHlzh 9HaGXRMyuliVN5mFeLWmCbLYz4I/CJ8Uo9Zv2ccJ27AQJqlQL65JCw1Pw7d6qvE1D0Qd 49v59Leg4pDH2qavDIC2QYlWE4CDTzsSQOXTQNuRgKnifqjP9/ydvJlWQtNNBOPBvcD6 1cUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1767802349; x=1768407149; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tciGad/QzSMY95AFeb4TnECMWb1MTqg5xha1uh06VGQ=; b=WZKiu3gqE0q6TrXWCm50PRaZhQ8Cv9hbF3MdSe+CxJe4Qcq67Omaz67iRlW3zbiQH/ sRsiN0S22bGtXWInKuVX+Ei++HxPZErRd09ZJk3V/j+Rj0IeheDKo9ro8eYLC9//nXCQ cTRnSadUrZYxXONxC7dYg22eGxslOAoZ/zkXkRJGw2OJd22bCXzjrcxzPUH0u4UrBE/Q QaPt68mAFKSojagWzPIEVUVTGb6x7zYALOuyNVvhY4+QGDuV0oOP1TP/s93hE2EUyVdw l1A9SWoH4jWjEgHFQdwuPB/5Bw1fzMOXMAsUVDWHc7i88TzOKoP8H+fJ4Ql2WJEIS3aB j72A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVI57D/IXP9ScjVP2wTwdzJ1e7eio3fMbw7/KQS1Dzy5XjSsgX/i2YVgW1tsznRVeH8Ysyi1F8=@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx43nl0w8mk+gxrKRYZyuLx3nmAyGDtkERvwGn2L2scpqHRAkrs QzK/F9lrJrig/JaElncVl/HsV32wacRXsHr4k8sTfdJKJjRh8H69rNVDQjiobub7yQARy/rlB7Q +1WKSj0mc7eyOaRS7DktyIPpMztf6sEo= X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX6nW/ZjyNsaJfnkCMWxpmGr6gUWweQ1+taOUN/S7DpkOdp27QwvPS//ZKf7WTZ gD8cejP3OYiS0dVWekg9RTrI+NgxpqOx9dfgrW/zh1iQZCeTS4ml4JccfaTJIQ3Un3+5onDpiSU VbdUn9jtUs9jKJyB1nnz+x3fKDInwZlTYbG+b6LOunwkb9AkfZvoCiivRzZGNqWF0MUmfZuxMWJ QSjUkQchFPrfXG9hCOiQp/nJiL6qYsM+RCPTWuRYEpaY6NNOYc3feCwBz0ZE3CygbYkeB4WGiKF oX3DO+3QiAccBng94GcIhfNGUYdm X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH6SEpXujzEZ1FcMmA68BWGqQoX7r4yVhpO7O6rm+nkHo1J3pT7cvuA73aqY29oW2sP7IC/6ENIormtuiPWcEQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:fc0a:b0:11b:bf3f:5208 with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-121f8ab6a1emr1871477c88.1.1767802348392; Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:12:26 -0500 Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:12:26 -0500 From: Alvaro Retana In-Reply-To: References: <176092029759.1973200.513040266258552652@dt-datatracker-84f8f646b-tg6mn> <0C6E17B1-65FD-4E1A-83C5-A94350B74099@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:12:26 -0500 X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2oGIMWqaA3RJQIcrDxSTGaT4qJfCBHBLJ_NlgS2wgHvb2NM1CpFZ8fc4to Message-ID: To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , SPRING WG List , srv6ops@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000253b60647ce8f1d" Message-ID-Hash: 7INBFAXFOVYRW3C3U7KYBA5EVRO25EGB X-Message-ID-Hash: 7INBFAXFOVYRW3C3U7KYBA5EVRO25EGB X-MailFrom: aretana.ietf@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: spring Chairs , "draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security@ietf.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bspring=5D_Re=3A_Intended_Status_of_draft-ietf-spring-srv6-secur?= =?utf-8?q?ity-08=2Etxt_-_Re=3A_New_Version_Notification_for_draft-ietf-spri?= =?utf-8?q?ng-srv6-security-08=2Etxt?= List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000000253b60647ce8f1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [cc=E2=80=99ing the SRv6Ops WG.] On January 6, 2026 at 1:51:39=E2=80=AFPM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail= .com) wrote: [Thanks Zafar for kicking off this discussion!] WG/authors: We would like to hear opinions on Zafar's proposed change of Status for this document, from the Standards Track to Informational. Please explain why you might be in favor, or against, a change in the Status. We will take opinions until Jan/19, 2026. Thanks! Alvaro. On January 5, 2026 at 10:16:22=E2=80=AFPM, Zafar Ali (zali) (zali@cisco.com= ) wrote: Hi Alvaro, chairs, authors, WG, I am following up on the following comments from the chairs: "As the Shepherd, you should start a discussion on the list about this -- including any justification for changing the current status." Re - Q11: What status should the document have? In my opinion, the document should progress as Informational (like the case of rfc9099). There is some normative text and BCP 14 language, but it is mostly in restating normative language specified in existing RFCs the document cites. Some wordsmithing can fix it, without losing any substance. I do not think an update tag is needed. Given this hint from chairs, the intent of this email is to start that discussion. Chairs may chime in to follow up more formally/ change subject/ formal poll, etc. Thanks Regards =E2=80=A6 Zafar *From: *Alvaro Retana *Date: *Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 1:49=E2=80=AFPM *To: *Zafar Ali (zali) *Cc: *spring Chairs , draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security@ietf.org < draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security@ietf.org> *Subject: *Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-08.txt On December 16, 2025 at 8:48:08=E2=80=AFPM, Zafar Ali wrote: Hi Zafar! > I have submitted a Shepherd review. You submitted the Shepherd writeup -- thanks! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security/shepherdwr= iteup/ I have a couple of questions/comments (below). Specifically, your answer to Q11 should be discussed on the list before starting the WGLC. In your review of the document, do you have any comments for the authors to address? Thanks! Alvaro. > 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their > reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been > identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in > subsequent reviews? > > I think the document will benefit from a directorate review from OPS and > SEC areas. > ... > [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics I will request OPS and SEC (and RTG) directorate reviews with the WGLC. Do you have any specific items I should point out based on [6]? > 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream > ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard] > [13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the > proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly > reflect this intent? > > Proposed Standard is requested and indicated in the title page header. > However, it is my opinion that the working group should discuss the > intentional status of the document (Standards Track, informational or BCP) > before the handoff. What status should the document have? As the Shepherd, you should start a discussion on the list about this -- including any justification for changing the current status. We have discussed this document Updating (at least) rfc8402. We would need this document to be on the Standards Track (or maybe a BCP) to do that. The "Updates" tag is not ideal, but it is the only one we have. Consider an "Update" if discussing the status on the list. > 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the > intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described > in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required > disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any > relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages > when applicable. > > Yes, reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual > property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations. There have been IPR call as > part of the progression of this draft. I'll poll again with the WGLC. Please include links to the mail archive of that call when done (the IESG likes that). > 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing > RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and > are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed > in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the > document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is > discussed. > > No. Based on the "Updates" discussion, this answer may need to be updated. --0000000000000253b60647ce8f1d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[cc=E2=80=99ing the SRv6Ops WG.]

On January 6, 2026 at 1:51:39=E2=80=AFPM, Alvaro Retana= (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wro= te:

=
[Thanks Zafar for kicking off this discussion!= ]


WG/authors:

We would like to hear opinions on Zafar's proposed change of Statu= s for this document, from the Standards Track to Informational.

Please explain why you might be in favor, or a= gainst, a change in the Status.=C2=A0

We will take opinions until Jan/19, 2026.

Thanks!
Alvaro.

On January 5, 2026 at 10:16:22=E2=80=AFPM, Z= afar Ali (zali) (zali@cisco.com) wrot= e:

<= div>
Hi Alvaro, chairs, authors, WG,=C2=A0

I am following up on the following comments from the chairs:
"As the Shepherd, you should start a discussion on the list about this= -- including any justification for changing the current status."

Re - Q11: What status should the document have?=C2=A0=C2=A0

In my opinion, the document should progress as Informational (like the case= of rfc9099).=C2=A0
There is some normative text and BCP 14 language, but it is mostly in resta= ting normative language specified in existing RFCs the document cites. Some= wordsmithing can fix it, without losing any substance.=C2=A0
I do not think an update tag is needed.=C2=A0

Given this hint from chairs, the intent of this email is to start that disc= ussion.=C2=A0
Chairs may chime in to follow up more formally/ change subject/ formal poll= , etc.=C2=A0

Thanks

=C2=A0

Regards =E2=80=A6 Zafar



From: Alvaro Retana <ar= etana.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 1:49=E2=80=AFPM
To: Zafar Ali (zali) <zali@cisc= o.com>
Cc: spring Chairs <spri= ng-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security@ietf.org <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-secur= ity@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-sec= urity-08.txt

On December 16, 2025 at 8= :48:08=E2=80=AFPM, Zafar Ali wrote:

Hi Zafar!

> I have submitted a S= hepherd review.

You submitted the Shepher= d writeup -- thanks! =C2=A0


I have a couple of questi= ons/comments (below). Specifically, your answer to Q11 should be discussed = on the list before starting the WGLC.

In your review of the doc= ument, do you have any comments for the authors to address?


Thanks!

Alvaro.


> 10. Several IETF Are= as have assembled [lists of common issues that their
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 review= ers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 identi= fied and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 subseq= uent reviews?
>=C2=A0
> I think the document= will benefit from a directorate review from OPS and=C2=A0
> SEC areas.
> ...

I will request OPS and SE= C (and RTG) directorate reviews with the WGLC.=C2=A0 Do you have any specif= ic items I should point out based on [6]?



> 11. What type of RFC= publication is being requested on the IETF stream=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ([Best= Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard]
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [13], = [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 proper= type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 reflec= t this intent?
>=C2=A0
> =C2=A0Proposed Stand= ard is requested and indicated in the title page header.
> =C2=A0However, it is= my opinion that the working group should discuss the
> =C2=A0intentional st= atus of the document (Standards Track, informational or BCP)
> =C2=A0before the han= doff.

What status should the do= cument have?=C2=A0 As the Shepherd, you should start a discussion on the li= st about this -- including any justification for changing the current statu= s.

We have discussed this do= cument Updating (at least) rfc8402.=C2=A0 We would need this document to be= on the Standards Track (or maybe a BCP) to do that.=C2=A0 The "Update= s" tag is not ideal, but it is the only one we have.=C2=A0 Consider an "Update" if discussing the status on the list.



> 12. Have reasonable = efforts been made to remind all authors of the=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 intell= ectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 in [BC= P 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 disclo= sures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 releva= nt discussion, including links to publicly-available messages=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 when a= pplicable.
> =C2=A0
> =C2=A0 Yes, reasonab= le efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> =C2=A0 property righ= ts (IPR) disclosure obligations. There have been IPR call as
> =C2=A0 part of the p= rogression of this draft.

I'll poll again with = the WGLC.=C2=A0 Please include links to the mail archive of that call when = done (the IESG likes that).



> 19. Will publication= of this document change the status of any existing=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RFCs? = If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 are th= ose RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 in the= introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 docume= nt where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is=C2=A0
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 discus= sed.
>=C2=A0
> No.

Based on the "Update= s" discussion, this answer may need to be updated.
--0000000000000253b60647ce8f1d--