IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 05 September 2019 13:34 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 86287120091; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 pzZPSQx0yOqg; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::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 C245D120026; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (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 6717B4E11B0A; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:34:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2291B97D5A; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:34:49 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <ea9557e5-9025-db78-8862-18454dd549c3@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:34:49 +0200
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5200FFA0-E2F1-4491-8D06-0DC6BF87F77A@employees.org>
References: <BYAPR05MB54637FEAE1518F83977D274FAEB80@BYAPR05MB5463.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <538732E2-915B-4952-A439-F4678FCC21B2@employees.org> <4c6b2456-db05-0771-5b98-bfd9f07b220b@si6networks.com> <34AB9F0F-614B-45C2-BD84-7DD53A1D5188@employees.org> <ea9557e5-9025-db78-8862-18454dd549c3@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ozw_04zO8LfEjIXFmY_7rD0ylT0>
Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: 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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:34:57 -0000

Joel,

> Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so that we do not have to repeat the arguments.
> 
> If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, they need to make those arguments.  And they need to make sure that the discussion is taken to the relevant working groups.  The burden should not be on those who are asking that attention be paid to existing RFCs.

As far as I know, but I'm trying to stay away from the actual proposals and argue this generally, no-one is proposing to update the RFC8200 header insertion text.
What people are proposing are for specific domains. And given that, I believe people need to argue the technical merits of those specific proposals.
As opposed to throwing the "law book" around.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email