Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Wed, 11 March 2020 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8816F3A0128; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 FpBsUxIYhuhT; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE0F53A0141; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48d0hG1MgPz2yJr; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:23:26 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1583951006; bh=mbX3QIzM0k/8jnawJHH+Ug0oIyV5w1CXV16u+a15fZA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=KraADK6AX+iT0TNM2KrzBuBc1cgVYUlyrwnr4KGusvAJwzIaYB9gbwLynNvP0UzkO myYPr5JoY/defj5HWfsgAbuhmnqSuTDgtiK64bpJ7r3y9cqDeycWktOPU6l7LUTpCm bUNZ3/2AKkbdam6VasjCL3aFv70tgdKC40jjaFzB0Uvw3rEmvHffOd4eOC62wSqr8/ emgz25/GTuvvLUEOFp1f9ep6e1OpyjGaUuOEJKuNaahyEMU3QiU2b/caLyqQoW9o0t x5QyHdZ3qXuTLSVZ30VrVVcK9z+ymJ7pUsbAa6oCJeIU7yZONGqzwDtqWFdqhAg1B9 wLW+ZfFXm9DfA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.70]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48d0hG03kszCqkM; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:23:26 +0100 (CET)
From: <>
To: Andrew Alston <>, "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <>
CC: "" <>, 6man WG <>
Thread-Topic: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AdWrjZKMyJw/FcG0Qj29O28HuDn7+xFNkTUAAAh6zQAAUFctAABT0o7wAOZRhgAAGh18EAAWNPyQ
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:23:25 +0000
Message-ID: =?utf-8?q?=3C14562=5F1583951006=5F5E692C9E=5F14562=5F385=5F1=5F5?= =?utf-8?q?3C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DE6243=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?=
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <> <> =?utf-8?q?=3C14D40038-77D4-43DB-AC36-1199EE547944=40cisco=2Ecom=3E_=3CDBBPR?= =?utf-8?q?03MB5415A2097FD500326B7907FCEEE30=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Epr?= =?utf-8?q?od=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CC223D73B-D556-427C-82AB-0042C33E32F4=40cisco=2Ecom=3E_=3CDBBPR?= =?utf-8?q?03MB5415ADF9271EE267C3205CCBEEFC0=40DBBPR03MB5415=2Eeurprd03=2Epr?= =?utf-8?q?od=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CDBBPR03MB5415ADF9271EE267C3205CCBEEFC0=40DBBPR03MB?= =?utf-8?q?5415=2Eeurprd03=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DE6243OPEXCAUBM43corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:23:33 -0000


>  I just went and checked the spring WG site on  I found it rather curious that there is not a *single* ticket on that site – nor is there any closures listed on that site, despite all the work that has gone in.

Some WGs use the ticket tracking system [1] , some don’t. SPRING WG has not, so far, since its creation. For the WGs that I follow in the routing area, it’s not used a lot. 6MAN WG has used it for the SRH document.


[1] I’m assuming that you are referring to

From: ipv6 [] On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 8:48 AM
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Cc:; 6man WG
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming


PC2: The comment started because in the draft we had an example that was assigning A:1::/32 as loopback interface for a router. This is wrong (prefix length, documentation prefix,).
This was fixed in revision 2 of the WG draft, published in September 19th 2019. The closure of this comment was presented by me personally in IETF Singapore. Please refer to the slides. In Singapore you were present (signed blue sheet) and did not had any comment about such closure.

This is interesting – so firstly – let me state that because I was present in a meeting and signed a blue sheet to say I was there – in no way indicates that I forgo the right to object after the meeting – and last I checked, signatures on a blue sheet are there to track attendance, not to track consensus.

Now, on to the issue at hand – I am curious as to how this closure was presented to you because I just went and checked the spring WG site on  I found it rather curious that there is not a *single* ticket on that site – nor is there any closures listed on that site, despite all the work that has gone in.  I also point out that I was in that room in Montreal, and the issue related beyond just as a /32 – and the agreement from my reading of it was not to change to an arbitrary number, and declare the issue closed – the agreement was to do an analysis of the address space potentially utilized and present it to the working group – this has not happened.  So – can you provide a clear reference to this closure either in a tracker or an email list somewhere?

I also point you to Which expressly refers to the lack of discussion that has occurred on this – which appeared way after Singapore.




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.