Re: [spring] Suggest some text //RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Sat, 7 Mar 2020 12:13:23 +0100,
Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > But, again, I expect not everyone agrees on this idea.  You probably
> > won't; then I'll respect that.  Sometimes we just have to agree to
> > disagree.
>
> Well perhaps to your surprise I am all for clarity in the specifications.
> So I have nothing against this spec (or any other spec) to formally update
> RFC8200. But correct me if I am wrong - but this would require also 6man
> WGLC if I am not mistaken in the process ?

Assuming you mean draft-bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update, yes, and it will
first need to be adopted way before that, and it's not even
guaranteed.

> But as you just mentioned there was "hundreds if not thousands of email
> messages" regarding header insertion/deletion in flight on 6man and that is
> why some authors may be actually resisting to take that path - just to keep
> the pandora box closed.

Perhaps.  While I strongly suspect it's an accidental bug rather than
an intentional art of obfuscation, I'm afraid we don't have an
evidence to prove (or deny) that in a court.

> Maybe a compromise is to either start a parallel effort to issue RFC8200bis
> or just propose a one page new 6man draft with clear statement that routing
> headers can be removed by nodes listed in the SRH segment list and move fwd
> ?

Hmm, what I proposed for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is
essentially just that (in the context of, and with other restrictions
such as limiting it to the penultimate node, specific to
srv6-network-programming).

But if writing a separate document just focusing it (in which case
network-programming would refer to it as an example of that update)
makes the process faster, that can be an option.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya