Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 5/9/19 09:46, [e-mail] wrote:
[....]
>> 
>> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or
>> leave the IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has
>> had consensus that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be
>> bad, wastefull, tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go
>> through the whole publication process, and just rely on the AD to
>> keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed.
> 
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference
> to [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01#section-13.1
>
>  As such, from a process standpoint, it would not going to be
> published before [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] be
> itself published as RFC. And from its name, the latter is intended to
> be discussed and within control of the 6MAN WG. So I don't think that
> we can say that it "just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS" button
> pressed."

Yes, it is just relying on that.

A question of you as a chair: does the wg you chair publish documents
based on current specs (or at the very least based on  changes that are
going to happen in the near term as a result of *existing and proven
consensus*), or does spring ship documents that implicitly betting on
changes that have no consensus?

The former is how I expect WGs to operate. The later shows a clear path
to a huge pile of documents stuck at IESG review, simply because so
later in the process folks found out that the document turns out to
violate existing specs. With the risk of an AD pressing "YES", and hence
IETF has been circumvented.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1