Re: [spring] Note for clarify with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 20 March 2021 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 F10113A26BF for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 7Ajin2ODpEJJ for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 C5A853A26BD for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2ndF4yC3z6G9SM; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1616260945; bh=V+rTdrJPv2dE/5W19SUHsZP71xIqFfaOG7AlvLLzKI8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OeV31y2thMARc6f/shaIY7lGVNAC86VWUzgUENQrqfj1r+wgv2ZZ49sNmNydE/XEW PAGscVTk0uiqrVdJt7h+kH79l2hLFVsEG34iYiOlVWgh6sM2rKSdUDJ81of2NYXxvl utoa9zAK8ZmrD+aRFWSi55wTigpuOnjdCPBvo+zI=
X-Quarantine-ID: <EFE6MExPmgAp>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (unknown [50.225.209.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F2ndF1KTtz6G9SJ; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <MN2PR13MB4206195971F792DAD046E81AD26B9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <E49C910A-E0C7-4149-A743-BF3C382206A8@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <864ae968-6a27-1d08-e2e8-966b4d02de03@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:22:23 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E49C910A-E0C7-4149-A743-BF3C382206A8@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/DbwF9Tl7pKHWAbpfsST-mL66u00>
Subject: Re: [spring] Note for clarify with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05
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: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 17:22:27 -0000

It can be the same document.  We could not find wording that made it 
clear that the update had to be approved by the owning WG, and that 
SPRING approval would be conditional on such.  And still alow for them 
being the same or different documents.

On the other hand, the usual practice has been to separate them as it 
makes for cleaner discussions.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/20/2021 12:49 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Jim, Joel & Bruno,
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2021, at 8:42 AM, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear WG:
>>
>> A quick note from the chairs for clarity with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression and as a matter of process for future unrelated documents.
>>
>> With regard to section 5.2 of draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05, the chairs note that this is primarily an IETF process issue, not a technical issue about solutions.  The chairs also remind people of two aspects of IETF process:
>>
>> 	• First, an IETF draft which modifies an existing PS or BCP requirement will not be adopted by the SPRING WG without a corresponding document that explicitly modifies or updates the requirement being sent for consideration by the relevant WG.
>> 	• Second, the document which makes such a modification or update will need to be approved by the IETF working group which owns the existing requirement before the SPRING document will be advanced out of the SPRING WG.
> 
> I don’t see why a single document can’t update both.   IDs are allowed to update multiple documents, the changes need to be clear, but I don’t see why separate documents are required.  Please explain.
> 
> Bob
> 
>