Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 04 September 2019 02:50 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 3F4B8120090; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 lySnJdl1ZTR0; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
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 B8F91120072; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 19:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (ppp-94-69-228-25.home.otenet.gr [94.69.228.25]) (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 2C2F9860B7; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 04:50:27 +0200 (CEST)
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, li zhenqiang <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>, draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion <draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
References: <HK0PR03MB3970C6DCC635E7CD802D65FDFCBD0@HK0PR03MB3970.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR05MB54636A2332FED916A26A6F14AEBD0@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3e31873a-278a-2154-0e71-4d820bba323d@gont.com.ar> <4012D854-2F10-4476-951D-FFFE73C5083C@gmail.com> <cb2f56f8-acdc-d68d-0878-9609cb3d7b1b@gont.com.ar> <18D85493-5FD4-4D26-B1A1-0931513DC847@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <05b6474b-ecc2-fbf9-ac5e-d81157be8b90@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 05:50:14 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18D85493-5FD4-4D26-B1A1-0931513DC847@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nN7S2bu4gp-PmsFyJzamiu6jU7c>
Subject: Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:50:34 -0000

On 4/9/19 05:23, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello, Suresh,
>> 
>> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: [....]
[....]
>> 
>> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or
>> leave the IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has
>> had consensus that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be
>> bad, wastefull, tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go
>> through the whole publication process, and just rely on the AD to
>> keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed.
>> 
>> Put another way: what'd be the rationale for having a draft-ietf
>> and have the corresponding wg ship the document with something that
>> clearly goes against IETF consensus, and that the relevant AD has
>> declared that wouldn't let pass?
> 
> In short, this is not the case. I am *not* the relevant AD for the
> SRv6 Network Programming draft. If this document was in 6man I would
> have flagged it much earlier like I did for the SRH draft.

Sorry, what I meant by "relevant AD" is: "one of the responsible ADs for
the spec that's being violated".

i.e., isn't there in the IETF process -- whether formal or informal --
for this sort of thing to be flagged before documents get too far in the
publication process?  ("Hey, this document in your area is actually
breaking a spec of one of my wgs" sort of thing...)

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