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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Based on the value of this doc, it deserves an extension of WGLC, even a second WGLC.
It is obvious that some technical isssues and comments are still boiled in this list. So, in my opinion I am afraid that the WGLC can not reach the rough consensus that the doc is ready to move forward.

Since the issues are mainly ralated to the flavor section, why not extract this part from this main doc to a separate doc and try to move the main doc forward. We can discuss the separate flavor doc further. 

Best Regards,
Zhenqiang Li


[e-mail]
 
From: Warren Kumari
Date: 2020-02-27 03:15
To: John Leddy
CC: SPRING WG List; [e-mail]; Bob Hinden; Zafar Ali \(zali\)
Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming
in the IETF", especially Sections 3 & 6 (it is a short document, you
should read the whole thing, but pay special attention to these
sections).
 
It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
-- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
- and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
category...
 
W
 
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:01 PM John Leddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> +1 in support of moving the document forward.
>
> John Leddy
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Zafar,
> >
> >> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1,
> >>
> >> Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ …
> >> implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been documented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status/
> >
> > I think the proper question is there a consensus to advance this document.
> >
> > There seems to be questions about its relationship with RFC8200.  I am not seeing this as being resolved.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------