Re: [spring] Note for clarify with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05

Bob Hinden <> Sat, 20 March 2021 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631593A2633; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q0tup1daJ1Xs; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::629]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71CAE3A2632; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w3so14552026ejc.4; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ME5eRjqSc5wQIZAIiacbP6rexHL5MolCAc3stZBiuOc=; b=iBx8RxKvWvXYSel2Ekh2e4sJjlehVyAxWBajCHQN8T6cqJKN+VnSND5ttzd27MXSqO V2HXhLvD1gI/ca2GBXAoWqelGlMVa8/MHxksDqh5W87wDHdCNIAA/Oxk61mZJrHal+7N g98Y7MEM8rPTjCRyGkqdH9Iej6YC0sErdrDBzs0GJLD/w+xKE+eYetix4XyluevHST79 i/jS6refRnGovRkZPyrq1BraqDqVARTx9BbQZbNoWbUaJD0qGopiQQ/ZWO922WwlqI9Z yHUJbNxyRCpXVbF2q6T1NKwJJ1Sqi+Q+73jVOcEk6qbzdOIhaNcDLSd0QM/yMMvteZE7 UG1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ME5eRjqSc5wQIZAIiacbP6rexHL5MolCAc3stZBiuOc=; b=VSn0Zjb8dOhu+8pBCKWM/wkQFy+tworxIG16C34/6AtUK8nlUQX6DFBaXZAENv6cht RSThlCGtggkQa3atMQNQA/DH8FFm4PwCKU+aDAOJu+iui4CEdSK434zBp0LLdPj6A055 AUUC6Rn32ZxYT9k/GwMKsDi2SBuo7DjbOwHPD4kGPAhOzrJRcCBZEy+Xtg7gA1Fv66E7 f7+KFqBO4qzkSfmiZw6eq1YLzzd3b5CBTzr0KrpxprSsfYl/Nt8TKBnQx4j//qFwVF6F DfG9jNeI41s7KDLC4FMuFP9jmD+yZ+HTXA+XOthwcFKhRiUL3zpI29+ELQfCzU4wb+OC Wgrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rod7Rs4MQaoAO51EJypajH6u1eyqxC0S7KHgaXu2B4NE8ebR7 G/H8gPxjMjkPWUYnD5NGXsE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx47HtOXxPtEuqL1ASJHsN+CMW3DvmRljTxbUjgMFxoSG94Ey8HIu8n5xjBvRgA2acdj6ctcA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3e8a:: with SMTP id hs10mr10667874ejc.267.1616258965633; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id gj26sm5591767ejb.67.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_76E20A2C-2855-4152-9D5E-B01ACEAE3CCD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:49:20 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: James Guichard <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Note for clarify with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:49:31 -0000

Jim, Joel & Bruno,

> On Mar 16, 2021, at 8:42 AM, James Guichard <> wrote:
> Dear WG:
> A quick note from the chairs for clarity with regards to draft-srcomdt-spring-compression and as a matter of process for future unrelated documents.
> With regard to section 5.2 of draft-srcomdt-spring-compression-requirements-05, the chairs note that this is primarily an IETF process issue, not a technical issue about solutions.  The chairs also remind people of two aspects of IETF process:
> 	• First, an IETF draft which modifies an existing PS or BCP requirement will not be adopted by the SPRING WG without a corresponding document that explicitly modifies or updates the requirement being sent for consideration by the relevant WG.
> 	• Second, the document which makes such a modification or update will need to be approved by the IETF working group which owns the existing requirement before the SPRING document will be advanced out of the SPRING WG.

I don’t see why a single document can’t update both.   IDs are allowed to update multiple documents, the changes need to be clear, but I don’t see why separate documents are required.  Please explain.