IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 06 September 2019 21:12 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 F1B70120E10; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 FpQD9pGB6z1F; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:12:15 -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 45762120DE6; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8094B; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:12:12 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1567804329; bh=sypoCILAWt+QFQtfWhy IC7S8JhBHqi/jCT7mLD86+oc=; b=rbVOtPnd6OP4VZ2UTJ2pP+V5sMHj/2TQMn8 HYv4dgKW7IEUfk27bTcGc7mnZSkTjP+jlbBC6phoBp5KQCMGcgCewlWr12IRj73f VzDx3M+koZqlo12mTEPBbLdS53Q/lPeQVCcbe0ICciBr42D89+ys1SgaV/bD1Idu 8Tk19bMY=
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 yZJ_8xgJsmKM; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:12:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.87.1.171] (unknown [145.15.244.17]) (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 498613C; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:12:07 +0200 (CEST)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <4053BBF5-4678-4E13-88E6-553627E4D32A@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_602693D1-06DA-493D-B284-6D97E82BAB4B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:11:54 +0200
In-Reply-To: <3D8725E7-EAA3-4615-ABA2-FFA53D2F1B14@employees.org>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <ca6e7a10-1b84-445f-053d-8a666ab4ec90@si6networks.com> <3D8725E7-EAA3-4615-ABA2-FFA53D2F1B14@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/R9jSVfXTW9d0LmbIfSwOvf1MJNk>
Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 21:12:19 -0000

Hi Ole,

> I think you have repeatedly made your point.

Yes he has, and he makes a good point that should be heard. Your argument of "RFCs aren't the law, and we can ignore parts of them if it suits us" just isn't true. RFCs are based on consensus, and ignoring the outcome of that consensus when it suits you is unacceptable for a WG chair.

Cheers,
Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email