Re: [spring] Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Alvaro,

On 3/6/20 15:29, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
[....]> ...
>> Note: I fail to see your analysis regarding technical objection #3: Your
>> analysis focuses on RFC8200 (the focus of technical objection #2), but
>> doesn't even mention RFC8754 (the relevant RFC for technical objection #3).
> 
> In relation to technical point 3, the concern you pointed at [SR-V]
> was resolved in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12
> [diff11-12] with text suggested by Brian Carpenter [SR-VA] on the same
> thread.  Given that the resolution is also related to the
> interpretation of RFC 8200 we decided to group the responses.  We
> should have mentioned this fact before.

I disagree. Technical point #2 is a different concern than technical 
point #3. That's the reason why they have been presented to you as two 
different technical points.

So, I don't think your response to technical point #2 answers the 
concerns in technical point #3.



>> For the sake of transparency, while I haven't talked to my fellow
>> Appellants about your response, I for one plan to Appeal to the IAB to
>> resolve this issue. That said, I'd appreciate your response to the
>> comments made above.
> 
> Except for the clarification above, it is not the intent of the IESG
> to reply to your other comments at this time. We have already provided
> carefully considered responses to all points raised in your appeal. 

FWIW, my take is that many of them have just been ignored. But so be it.

Thanks for your time,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492