Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

["Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

Inline with PC3.

Regards,
Pablo.

From: Andrew Alston <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 08:48
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: 6man WG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Pablo

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.

PC3: In IETF105 Montreal you went to the microphone and made a comment about addressing space. (IETF105 SPRING recording 25:07)
The presenter did not understand the details of your question and asked you to send it by email to the mailer. (IETF105 SPRING recording 25:53). You didn’t send such email.
You remain silent since then, and now you are accusing the authors of not doing a promise that you think was made.
                “The promises to deliver an assessment of IP Space burn as per what is on video from the montreal meeting – was not delivered on or addressed”
First I fail to see in the recording where such promise happened. I asked you for the precise timing but you did not send it.
It seems to me that you are putting words in someone else’s mouth, because the presenter asked you politely to send your comment to the mailer and you didn’t.
Then you are using this fake promise to attack the authors, chair and AD.
Am I missing anything?

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 trac.ietf.org.  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?

PC3: On the closure of the /32 wrong addressing examples:  IETF106 SPRING recording 26:13. And in the IETF106 NET-PGM slides, slide 7.

I also point you to  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/_SYsvWXQo9t4o2KbJuEiVS-75B4/ Which expressly refers to the lack of discussion that has occurred on this – which appeared way after Singapore.

PC3: As I pointed out yesterday, that email you are referring to has already been replied: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/34s0MNMsXe7lTYJr1jw-xBpoRp0/ So, going back to making technical progress: is there any technical point that remains to be addresses after reading the email I just referred to?


Thanks

Andrew