IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sat, 07 September 2019 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 6ECAF12004D for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 10:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=steffann.nl
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 4RfS4gAiOdev for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (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 4FA76120019 for <spring@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2F54B; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:22:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date:date :in-reply-to:x-mailer:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1567876928; bh=Pl+zgKqjz/rST9X7g4Nk6N4rNTpgE0aJT7dhV3jE9Lk=; b=d ohgvHODZvfh7v1q6/DAG9aWcbVPsOHgic4xK+QhTANWBRIKHfK7UlcRJDzGq9DpF StZ/3XrfBliC56B04Qrf0xYv3A1dGjO6b4Q07d2E2rpZj1UcUNqrYZ6OMPi+Io8h g3sKAre2j+X/334A3CEqxATih5Y//VhPi+SOXsM2Yw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id vl9I0oesnZRS; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:22:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:8cff:261b:4ff2:fcad] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:8cff:261b:4ff2:fcad]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1D5A3C; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-6F7F2035-5ECE-4C01-B385-A8AEC57DDC34"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G77)
In-Reply-To: <57C6EF54-991B-4AAE-924B-8639551967B4@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:22:06 +0200
Cc: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E68E1B7A-E748-4664-B3E5-0C1564895C51@steffann.nl>
References: <6B60DF69-4F15-412F-82CD-1ADD5CC68469@cisco.com> <5E3BE049-9BB8-4B05-8C9D-714FAC2B773B@liquidtelecom.com> <19F2D959-8B62-4B5C-9DAB-E4C4E83248F2@steffann.nl> <57C6EF54-991B-4AAE-924B-8639551967B4@cisco.com>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/J0GfCWdJP06ga4_fI9RqvMNgh0g>
Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.)
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, 07 Sep 2019 17:22:16 -0000

> [ZA] Please refer to section 3 of SRv6 deployment draft, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01#section-3. It provides some details on the Significant industry collaboration that led to SRv6 standardization. SRv6 standardization went through the rigorous IETF process (some may say much more rigorous than typically done at IETF).  

Throwing massive resources at something, sending many emails and creating many tickets don't represent "significant industry collaboration". They can equally represent ratholing, endless discussions and massive disagreement.

Stop trying to make yourself look superior. That has no place in the IETF. Statement like that are pathetic in my view. Please focus on technical excellence instead.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status