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

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.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 0969B120086 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 7ED0ckqleGlB for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265BE120059 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id v28so6447092edw.12 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <BN7PR05MB5699EA5F4C041538560282A6AE5F0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <52132FA9-669E-4B32-BDC8-6F06C98315F3@gmail.com> <CALx6S37r2JYbrMpN-qR3bD3kaOMj3xEceQC5JhVb8dqVzfq=5A@mail.gmail.com> <06B50938-0FC6-4901-9531-CC0385185F13@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <06B50938-0FC6-4901-9531-CC0385185F13@employees.org>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:38:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CALx6S35Y0LgwHzBawJUQEyYcRULgSVsRLCW0f35aqsrjX5QasA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/DOJF0cWdr1yXOHcyWOQofpEmZyI>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:38:57 -0000

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:06 AM <otroan@employees.org> 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.
>
Ole,

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.

Tom

> Ole
>