IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 05 September 2019 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 956D112006A; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 pmfer884ZvlY; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 4C47E120026; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46PLgY0qKYzKnLx; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1567689113; bh=rr9WbfFERcfEtHG47B/XK8c1rHU1mUvOoyYxRgzYVoU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ClHqEXPw06zUSqiHyFcoI6du+jw8nPHJPpZyGAV+4Co7NwhLyn/lc3U+Cmes320Nb WXtInW1hDZkO783jIuXolZ0gOUYNqguowGL8HbuG/jkmo8XS432LIIS+HFOLv0JWN0 Oh2XeYIn7n0XRPPD+nO9ng/E3P516P9cWxQVj9aA=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.51.246] (unknown [217.171.42.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46PLgW3CV5z1XLkX; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB54637FEAE1518F83977D274FAEB80@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <538732E2-915B-4952-A439-F4678FCC21B2@employees.org> <4c6b2456-db05-0771-5b98-bfd9f07b220b@si6networks.com> <34AB9F0F-614B-45C2-BD84-7DD53A1D5188@employees.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <ea9557e5-9025-db78-8862-18454dd549c3@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 09:11:50 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <34AB9F0F-614B-45C2-BD84-7DD53A1D5188@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/jVjQBErgWOvWiZYg2sZSqLgVmMg>
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:11:55 -0000

Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is 
so that we do not have to repeat the arguments.

If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now 
okay, they need to make those arguments.  And they need to make sure 
that the discussion is taken to the relevant working groups.  The burden 
should not be on those who are asking that attention be paid to existing 
RFCs.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/5/2019 9:05 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>>> The IETF is not writing de jure standards.
>>> In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it does somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces.
>>> In fact I know of no networking products (or deployments) that follow the intent and spirit of RFC8200. I challenge to point me to one! ;-)
>>
>> How did we elevate IPv6 to Internet Standard, then?  On the shepherd
>> write up for rfc2460bis, you argued essentially the opposite to what
>> you're arguing now:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis/shepherdwriteup/
> 
> I have not changed my position with regards to header insertion.
> I'm arguing that you should argue technical merit on actual proposals.
> Instead of trying to make RFC documents apply as laws and slap people over the head with those...
> 
> Cheers,
> Ole
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email