Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

[<[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 9:54 PM
> 
> On 5/9/19 09:46, [e-mail] wrote:
> [....]
> >> 
> >> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or
> >> leave the IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has
> >> had consensus that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be
> >> bad, wastefull, tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go
> >> through the whole publication process, and just rely on the AD to
> >> keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed.
> > 
> > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference
> > to [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-01#section-13.1
> >
> >  As such, from a process standpoint, it would not going to be
> > published before [I-D.voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion] be
> > itself published as RFC. And from its name, the latter is intended to
> > be discussed and within control of the 6MAN WG. So I don't think that
> > we can say that it "just rely on the AD to keep the "DISCUSS" button
> > pressed."
> 
> Yes, it is just relying on that.

Situation has changed since this email: the network programming draft has now removed text related to SRH insertion.
Please comment on the text if you see text related to SRH insertion.

> A question of you as a chair: does the wg you chair publish documents
> based on current specs (or at the very least based on  changes that are
> going to happen in the near term as a result of *existing and proven
> consensus*), or does spring ship documents that implicitly betting on
> changes that have no consensus?

In general, I don't see the benefit of sending a draft which we expect would never progress to RFC. So this would not be my preferred path.
However, I guess that as always, there are exceptions and I'm not a priori aware of a process forbidding this. As of today, I'd rather not spend time on this hypothetical case.
 
> The former is how I expect WGs to operate. The later shows a clear path
> to a huge pile of documents stuck at IESG review, simply because so
> later in the process folks found out that the document turns out to
> violate existing specs. With the risk of an AD pressing "YES", and hence
> IETF has been circumvented.

While IESG processing is beyond my paycheck (literally ;-) ), I trust the IESG. And I don't see a reason to doubt a priori.
And even in this case, there may be a possibly to fetch back the document from the RFC editor queue.

In short: very hypothetic case and beyond my hat. As of today, I'd propose that we work on the text of the document.

Thank you,
--Bruno
 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
>

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.