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

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 05 March 2020 00:15 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 EA0263A0CB7; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:15:04 -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 NBEas8GOI-i8; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:15:03 -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 24A1D3A0CB5; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:15:03 -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 91765831CA; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:14:57 +0100 (CET)
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, spring@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> <3c909d31-5520-2f3d-d51a-547d634e7cbe@nokia.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Cc: "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <df36d82d-432c-aed6-dca4-8b5aedccc441@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 21:14:48 -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: <3c909d31-5520-2f3d-d51a-547d634e7cbe@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/klH4StuD4E8DhVVrgGEBIFUf0sE>
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:15:05 -0000

Martin,

On 4/3/20 18:02, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> WG,
> 
> I wanted to bring more context to my decision.
> 
> This document has received a lot of valuable reviews and comments which 
> improved it. That served me as a base to determine consensus on the 
> overall document.
> 
> The point I'd like to insist on is the one I was mentioning in my 
> previous e-mail. In my view, the remaining prominent discussion (and 
> tension) point was about the text of 8200, its implications on the 
> optional PSP capability, and the ramifications of it.
> I have determined there is rough consensus, in SPRING, on the way to 
> read the specific text of 8200, but also that certain aspects go beyond 
> SPRING and would benefit from being discussed with a wider community.
> 
> 
> I'd like to remind that this was a WG Chair level decision. Indeed, 
> Bruno still needs to produce the shepherd write-up and submit the 
> document for publication.

May I ask what's the status of this I-D?  -

On one hand, both Bruno and you declared consensus to move it forward. 
On another hand, the authors keep making changes to address comments 
(good) so what the wg will ship will be very different from the document 
on which you claimed consensus. Besides, the datatracker lists the 
document as "in WGLC", as opposed to "Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead" or 
"WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up".

Last, but not least, are you planning to do a second WGLC?

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