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

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6883A0E69; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:03:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7JyyUbwEciJV; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:03:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98E713A0E68; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:03:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C3852AA04A4022C597CC; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:03:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:03:22 +0000
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 21:03:19 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 21:03:19 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
CC: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AQHV8MPXNSPizE/cbESvNLcbjpkFsqg1TogAgAMZPgA=
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:03:19 +0000
Message-ID: <0988cc47dd1c4026b29b0f169bfa0374@huawei.com>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com> <CAO42Z2w8kJaEFUTuk0cpNo48q=035fYCNrLiwVwr-TeM2j5wkA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2w8kJaEFUTuk0cpNo48q=035fYCNrLiwVwr-TeM2j5wkA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.191.133]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0988cc47dd1c4026b29b0f169bfa0374huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/AQjyHnusN9ZdQTJK6b-SdRW2d1I>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 13:03:29 -0000

Hi WG,
What I can see is that the version 11 diffs are just borrowed from the initial text I proposed on the mailing list days before.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nZwDUSpsVxTN_3UO0VLE9_2Eo5s/

These changes were editorial in nature and did not change anything of the behavior.

Even the proposed text by myself were all summarized from the long discussion that already there months before.

Going back further, my knowledge about the benefits of the PSP also came from the long discussion, as I said admittedly "benefits that people have already said seems notable to me".
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/wTLJQkzC6xwSNPbhB84VH0mLXx0/
It was almost 3 months before!

I don’t see how the editorial changes, based on the long discussion 3 months before, can affect at all the decision on whether to move forward the I-D.

BTW: I see rev-12 was just posted, and I am happy to see more of my proposed text are taken, though these text are just words in the list for 3 months. Maybe 1 minute is enough to get through the diff link.
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12

Thanks,
Jingrong

From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 5:40 AM
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

This -11 draft was posted at 3:53 am Melbourne, Australia time, and this declaration of consensus was at 5:35 am Melbourne, Australia time.

Sometimes I'm awake at those hours, but not last night. I did not have an opportunity to review the changes.


Regards,
Mark.



On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, 05:53 Martin Vigoureux, <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>> wrote:
WG,

as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating
consensus for this WG LC.

I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that
disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece of text
of RFC 8200 says, and on which this document builds to propose an
optional capability. Since RFC 8200 is not a product of the SPRING WG, I
have paid specific attention to the messages ([1], [2], and [3]) sent by
the responsible AD of 6MAN and of RFC8200.

My overall conclusion is that there is support and rough consensus to
move this document to the next stage.

Bruno will handle the immediate next steps.


Martin


[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso/
[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/plidxjZFBnd4_mEzGsLC76FZmQ0/
[3]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uBYpxPyyBY6bb86Y2iCh3jSIKBc/

Le 2019-12-05 à 18:15, bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com> a écrit :
> Hello SPRING,
>
> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
>
> Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version,
> and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
>
> You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not
> duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are
> only spring specifics.
>
> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated
> on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
>
> This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point and
> that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted into
> parallel independent discussions)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Bruno
>
> [1]
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring