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

Bob Hinden <> Sat, 20 March 2021 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A6F3A26F6 for <>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ntfXrx8jbjO8 for <>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37C613A26F4 for <>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v11so12321714wro.7 for <>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=KtYTdVm6qcM9gkXGUDIXuCK/s82KClU6dqehNQEDMl8=; b=mz6R/+IE+5KxklGcFHrXpUg3YygB9u+hnU0Cgye8Kp41tfXrhx1p925PWOL6RkSHac lTrKfzyaV7dMc4u6kL4eDARcCAoCCWn9b/OX+y7FLwwfh17pw5VhOBvmqqsU29phAi3n 32ou9J4ESaPU3ghh/6pKLU9b2GQIeduVABlxGFUUCMokQ16C6e+2EXdofOKC1kPc3kiV G/G8X0tQ+e1rp2JL2nuPBywkXh8w8g8cgvNLlLwZ605f7P8AhQTkLKOSkthjwBJtq+JN 3We11Nye4MZxKzIPxy2hOikB4QeRjd+OrlMIJUbTDKkv6qAU+K+c/b+Bd/7TOMUs5Hdz zjqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=KtYTdVm6qcM9gkXGUDIXuCK/s82KClU6dqehNQEDMl8=; b=nXhUBUH0Kr/RCVsj/HlnJyjXBAovHCycDucrJH/TOK3ZNunC3Hdafm6V/4UPbvzXtl HrRLdgLewVU4TsUzJhYrOwefOy0UDO40LOvYaKz05l1k39VH7u9Qf7H0HYfxf2FHHnka hDq3yotswPVTzsOci63gVVhxSXaflQs1hbdG53XBMEhQZv+CA0GEwXStWL0je5nnEiQ4 KoNFr/1Di7o4CcKfhSFgnEtxvshzgButn5BEkutYbUeTOTjDz33nNykerhQKhT1L6ynS BLllcrudigfmlKV9+NRCSF10Q4HxPNzujo/LDMUClzTvrfmsj/6JN4FF5ALn9B/kXFQ/ REbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KPIx0hTCF7nSiwS7QdnoZdMwZCsiMhbnD5yR0d4sRGU2T9v0x VG41bzy8DhzCuLVkIRxijgE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztNzsGBMqanQ2LPsSivmWK/41IjVBx8ExToh/VdpDzxNsR50oIfcFxYyhVjZCKeH7BBl/b2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:d236:: with SMTP id k22mr10221443wrh.144.1616261732243; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:87d:2c27:83af:11b8:35ee? ([2601:647:5a00:87d:2c27:83af:11b8:35ee]) by with ESMTPSA id q15sm13705943wrx.56.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0CD7AC7D-E783-4408-B3CF-30E12975399E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 10:35:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, "" <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Note for clarify with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05
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: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 17:35:37 -0000


Thanks for clarifying.   I agree if the updated documents were done in separate w.g., then having separate documents makes sense.


> On Mar 20, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:
> 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 <> 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