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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Mon, 02 March 2020 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
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 8DF613A10B9; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:16:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7CdED9XlHE1l; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C17D3A10ED; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEE8B8321E; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 21:15:58 +0100 (CET)
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, spring@ietf.org
Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <bfc2831c-9312-db49-5c2f-61134022c04f@gont.com.ar>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 17:15:33 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3e2da3a5-5d1b-10a0-aeb4-320c57584241@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kKTZR0BGfrFBTGu1YPl2KxbGMeo>
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:16:13 -0000

Martin,

On 2/3/20 15:53, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> WG,
> 
> as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating 
> consensus for this WG LC.

This is more and more confusing, seriously.

Bruno did the WGLC, and also communicated the outcome of the WGLC in 
first person, and now you state that it's you evaluating WGLC??

For instance.. what's this note in: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/or8086G4iYfee5_Icw4PnhkPLBo/
"As an element of context, I handled this WG LC not for the fun of it or 
because I believed it would easy, but because we needed to advance this 
document and that Rob was not available to take that role."

..posted by Bruno?



> I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that 
> disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece of text 
> of RFC 8200 says, and on which this document builds to propose an 
> optional capability. Since RFC 8200 is not a product of the SPRING WG, I 
> have paid specific attention to the messages ([1], [2], and [3]) sent by 
> the responsible AD of 6MAN and of RFC8200.
> 
> My overall conclusion is that there is support and rough consensus to 
> move this document to the next stage.

Then you have explicitly dismissed lots of comments made on this 
document that remained unaddressed. I assume you also implicitly support 
Bruno's claim that this wg is enable to evaluate the need for PSP.

Seriously, and with all due respect, I've never seen a wg or area 
proceed like this.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1