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

bruno.decraene@orange.com Tue, 03 March 2020 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
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 6C1CE3A22D7; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 08:07:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
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 MueTQx9RurNK; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 08:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8576D3A22D5; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 08:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48X22d11k0z1yFn; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:07:05 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1583251625; bh=tKHXxKfSgwi+R4NIz0NBah/0aL0uKj9hTe/AJ2EABeY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=F1R0hl6LTEyEEYY10zAcnir+1P7xhvvFq/43VA0qIvv21Y+JtLjGbzqVheaAwm+P7 RhYSzYmTuYjf99DeSgCkfSCubPjIKGu2XaZ8JUu3BLIlZHkBKh2aYxJswNf6cgmkCs OBEX+Z921LKiYdm4FPqqrALEBFa+nnSQeFzn42DCuQJCU7t/7xPl5le9yIvTj9VkI3 cER72SzdF0llhv35VwERB6AireMgr3alRsNEV7+jGqoJgZFeqBoVsh7EqLnU5HAu2o sE0A/sjuzMlRKBizqbASlnInf7zxI0gvIz+/QolSbd4GXHDPlIEHz/lA3K6i5N7zH3 +nxL6k2ZTDVyQ==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.82]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48X22d04TxzDq7d; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:07:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b846:2467:1591:5d9d]) by OPEXCAUBM5E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:07:04 +0100
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
CC: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AQHV8M2Q7wpSlCBhF0+50GVLrTAEY6g3Bvog
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:07:04 +0000
Message-ID: =?utf-8?q?=3C13027=5F1583251625=5F5E5E80A9=5F13027=5F228=5F1=5F5?= =?utf-8?q?3C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD81CF=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_=3C5518=5F1582908787=5F5E594573=5F?= =?utf-8?q?5518=5F436=5F1=5F53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA=40OPEXC?= =?utf-8?q?AUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3CC8417F71-D61E-42AC-831E-B85269D5D4A5=40steffann=2Enl=3E_=3C829?= =?utf-8?q?7=5F1583155968=5F5E5D0B00=5F8297=5F207=5F1=5F53C29892C857584299CB?= =?utf-8?q?F5D05346208A48DD4F8F=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Einfra?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eftgroup=3E?= <B656E21A-6E86-4A65-B260-82E0CCB29E7B@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <B656E21A-6E86-4A65-B260-82E0CCB29E7B@steffann.nl>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/XvceNR7ei-hexj0Lun7LBCuWQDE>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 16:07:09 -0000

Sander, 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] 
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:03 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
> Cc: SPRING WG List; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming; 6man WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
> >> Wait, what?!  There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the IETF or any other consensus based forum...
> > 
> > By advance this document, I meant start the WG LC. Which is about collecting comments on the document.
> 
> I think you are confused. This document has been in WG LC since December… I think many of us read "advance this document" as "declare consensus on WG LC".

Re-reading my sentence, I agree that it may be misinterpreted. Let me try to rephrase:
In December, I have started the WGLC because this has been asked by the authors of this WG document. And because this is usually a good way to trigger a review of the whole document by many persons, and hence improve the document.
(And I do think that the document has improved as a result of starting the WGLC)

 
> > The situation is that there was and is a single chair. I'm personally ok to not proceed with any adoption call or last call while there is no other co-chair. Note that my AD never asked for this.
> 
> I'm glad you confirm that no consensus has been declared. That seems the appropriate state at the moment.
>
> >> Based on the discussions on the mailing list (including questions on why PSP is so important that we can't take it out for now which have never been clearly answered by the authors) I can't see you can possibly declare consensus.
> >> 
> >> If there is going to be an appeal I will certainly put my signature on it.
> > 
> > This is you right to appeal to the IESG.
> 
> Now that we know that consensus hasn't been declared and the document is still in LC I think appealing would be premature :)
> 
> > Note that appealing to the IESG is exactly what I'm proposing to do with regards to the reading of RFC 8200.
> 
> Getting that feedback would indeed be helpful.

Good.
How do you propose that we get an evaluation and formal answer from the IESG on this point?
My proposal is to ask while asking the IESG review on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.

--Bruno
 
> Cheers!
> Sander
>

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.