Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Tom Herbert <> Fri, 06 December 2019 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0969B120086 for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ED0ckqleGlB for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265BE120059 for <>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v28so6447092edw.12 for <>; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ds+A3XQS5excCEciikXG0/6MyCXzxziyRadYHFAgsWE=; b=XBAIbcVKdjEDc4qOteyRt1cOxfBkWf/BL5PywO0GUitWhslA0osaXoFSHdTvUL+HEq pkDeqXNs0VL+ga0iNb1sZrmqGsWwkH48jUaeSbZSJd0NyvxJQfh+Y+beWKEgj8eria4b 4+BDQ2gc1Hc1bFA/52EU+8Q8gsmG9+kyBMxX5u/xLko0S3haxpITSoOfE1HJQuynQSNX MAn25Vd3mqlSy2l2rW2UX/vu353yRmTGXXrYjYUNAiFLG3pwRKBg8ViQLwJTiI+hC9XE Bjk3Uglz6YyIzGryLr8hHLeoORLDFYXDyvGzX7K8aSg+uog4HWhjxya45dmXo+WYLRle Y3yQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ds+A3XQS5excCEciikXG0/6MyCXzxziyRadYHFAgsWE=; b=DK6gqbFOXuAsUbjGOdmNNzt9/xjSunbtqccgWP8848MfUS0mWzQLzPxHutYpuvedIm RAtDFvSKRK0J9GC7/CciAyO9LaeDkpgAwq3y/aRIVod6sBpabjBL1N8/QZwSOXS739sQ kcpVcZkK/VoskWIxRwwBJaWF8SPl/ohf4LHjVZJZCf4AOkUFrnkn0WP836kZsi00Xjpq 5Ewf2O5B9LAJMzvbsv0oiUD3W4DCvJ+nku5CojCHqFB/lhG0NmWqWlEYUgtAE+lFQQAU V2oTXLlmMvo/wnQDGSvb2J4n/ZnvpjDGU4QQo/n9Zl71GtkKqhit/26RYzNUKIQOsVV+ Jzpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVQaxGF4sEmCnmTlblkStPey98yaVXoUzQKUbbZIoLEbHS6yh+x e9UZCUdup+uKi7FcXtqET07Rcvw0XGpLDzF+UbbUGw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiq0QyI4tZxSXctUQkeW1Dx6Dof6TWImx4TJ/+puAgm+36YdvHfF8eVigIMG2QyzXynZKQzx/yPcEsrcI1kWA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a444:: with SMTP id cb4mr16854080ejb.42.1575653933549; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 09:38:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tom Herbert <>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:42 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Ole Troan <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Ron Bonica <>, SPRING WG <>, 6man <>, "" <>, rtg-ads <>, Fernando Gont <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:38:57 -0000

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:06 AM <> wrote:
> Tom,
> > The advice from the chairs seems to be continue discussion. The
> > problem with that is that EH insertion has been discussed ad nauseum
> > over the past two years since the draft first appeared. It seems like
> > we are at the point where the same arguments on the topic are just
> > being rehashed on the list. As you mention above, the current
> > consensus is that the EH insertion conflicts with RFC8200. Right now
> > it seems like further discussion is open ended and without any
> > constraints a likely outcome will be attrition and eventual
> > acquiescence to accepting yet another non-conformant protocol that
> > became so widely deployed so that it can be fixed.
> >
> > In light of this, can the chairs or AD provide some guidance or
> > expectations on framing any further discussion on the topic to ensure
> > that it's productive and the process is moving forward.
> You should absolutely continue the discussion.
> Let me share a secret with you. Please don't share.
> The 6man working group has been tasked by the IETF leadership to
> ensure engaging discussions all year around.
> I have not been told the hidden establishment agenda behind this,
> but I can only presume that it is to keep the IPv6 enthusiasts
> away from affecting the real work being done in other areas of the IETF.
> The leadership has tasked us with circulating the discussions between the following topics:
>  - 64 bit boundary
>  - M/O bits
>  - ULA or not ULA
>  - Extension headers
>  - Defining new mechanisms for IID formats
> There is a scheduled switch to the M/O bits topic in mid January.
> Please continue to the good work on EH in the meantime.

Bear in mind that quality discussion is real work by those
participating. It is a lot of effort to carefully read drafts, give
clear feedback, and respond to rebuttals. I would like to think that
the work individuals put in is justified by the outcome, and I assume
it the chairs prerogative to steer the discussion as necessary to
drive towards a discernible outcome in a finite amount of time.


> Ole