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

Robert Raszuk <> Fri, 28 February 2020 22:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8F83A20C0 for <>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:37:09 -0800 (PST)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 cuiVdFLf-Yev for <>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D6B3A20C4 for <>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q84so4457962oic.4 for <>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:37:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XoUT6PfV3q8SDbGlskaB1jsLeKuDwna4MrDHHPp81Q4=; b=MKafGHjIjxfLTVbhH8ZoUnCYUwli7WJvuZ7wGAl+mmnnDESzyVQpwVl7o+yD0IlKWR Fq/ZMwN/bNbV6W1y0KihK26hBb1Liq/LrUeNiLp1Md8KF6nm8cKs4BWNx5WskAfhrZkc 88faJ+UIUhlT5U7cZSQDxmGl8kEasnr8r5wUKKX5qFp/7WidKZTeHp/OAui6/m6NqD9W xakAKw1Klua7MU9i9iNFp6P/QAYFpEZv0bVS/GXptOwyNfZGGMTZLRy/v4ktp16iEhCQ f2eMKTvR7QU8M9Jgy3nT9+vczdR6LkuPunYmMR6HKByoG6byPUcEpQE+xsQwmGTOoByW CqzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XoUT6PfV3q8SDbGlskaB1jsLeKuDwna4MrDHHPp81Q4=; b=JX7o9Y0mqN1YsHgsQxungqUzFT5IXJLIT5CeGqNw6chy8ONpvLdODp7izGXYxkaIkF DXG9PD0FF4auevZdD8kPKUWA6C3OpgZOZXtfPkDuDHNR2LAT4zjHfrJARR7Q6s02XMgX +1KUGXEBqaP0swkoBMpfQ3NzxhIoSg/DHbfUAqsyPI+M6VXwaogvBnUYDzZa9JavqdaE 7E8NXbBSSfnfcyb24hkh0c4/suA4k+QVoPy2rKr920KAJHMiziR/9wZFd3bEWkwhyYrX 8+Z8wIBij7lEew0qQu9Nu5ZO2coSto3badeZU11uPlEt/eAvRJP7KGXNGagGTwoX6Du6 jzng==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWwAFhCdopCJrGNVtq63DWjXQHPhNxqjtfYJml1Ym1LsMjeW0D hlWrkfzS+rAdX0vDRersm45kbhLWKCSVYdINGLpB6Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw6726g7KCBdgS/Lk5nDvGqkmn+vPlKsJWY+3MFLY+Jke0sfP+Kd9ERB5e9q+NSHsg2LyTwmVEEEnob/jpm8nU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:611:: with SMTP id y17mr4599041oih.146.1582929424734; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:37:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5518_1582908787_5E594573_5518_436_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 23:36:55 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Cc: Martin Vigoureux <>, SPRING WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000010ee02059faa7ad3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:37:16 -0000

Dear Mr Moonesamy,

Let me state that your accusations of Bruno's conflict of interest are
simply absurd.

You can count on one hand such chairs like Bruno who not only know very
well technology in the WG they are chairing, but also take a very neutral
position in accepting or progressing any work by the WG. I know Bruno for
over 20 years and never would even think for a second to send such nonsense

Last time I checked IETF does not prohibit chairs to be part of WG

His information about 6man AD not accepting the Errata: 5933 is correct.
Errata must be first accepted by an AD then processed further. Since it was
posted on 11th Dec 2019 it was still not accepted at first stage. You are
mixing AD acceptance / validation with IESG decision. Those are completely
different errata processing phases.

I understand when someone is not able to make any further technical
arguments, personal attacks start. Awesome !

Have a nice weekend,

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:04 PM S Moonesamy <> wrote:

> Dear Mr Vigoureux,
> I am contacting you as you are listed as the Responsible Area
> Director for the SPRING Working Group [1].  I would like to thank the
> Working Group for providing some information [2] about the status of
> the Working Group Last Call.
> I was a bit surprised to see that one of the Working Group Chairs is
> listed as a contributor in
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.  It is quite unusual
> to have the contributor of a Working Group document handle the
> Working Group process for the document.  Would there be a potential
> conflict of interest?
> The summary provides by the Working Group Chair states that the
> Responsible Area Director "has not accepted the related errata".  I
> took a quick look at erratum eid5933; it is listed as "Reported".  As
> the erratum has not been classified as per the relevant IESG
> Statement, describing it as "not accepted" is inaccurate.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list