Re: [spring] Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping

otroan@employees.org Thu, 05 December 2019 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 9C2D812008D; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:16:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 MN6GHQawwyh1; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D70120073; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:16:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:c5ba:f887:5271:a211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F16C94E11AFF; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 21:16:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF273250EE68; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:16:09 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:16:09 +0100
Cc: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes@cisco.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4FAB68A3-C533-471D-94D0-3F6EB1F32FC1@employees.org>
References: <BN7PR05MB56998A05469327E759B5B671AE5D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3AD3BD11-8C34-41FE-B88F-49A9F2561D78@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569946D6AA5C6B78AFC05F6BAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8DEDE597-B7B0-48F5-959E-69757315C2AC@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/mQc5P_Y0aqFw1TGpzXqkUAb3gEc>
Subject: Re: [spring] Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping
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 Dec 2019 21:16:15 -0000

Ron,

> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?

The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft).
For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob, but I think he will agree with it being classified as "evolving".

Best regards,
Ole