Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 30 November 2019 00:00 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 F12B71200CC for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:00:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 8NlTI4Q2EbT3 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:00:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 233D7120033 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47Ps3C0RLbz1nsx9; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:00:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1575072055; bh=aQGeH5SlKDfnsgPqqeaRr31+QwCIn66QRksEfFZQ8gw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=j4AXCsoxWVkiJPr4Th4gwM/TcpniYraqGZ/64wIT+jw9XIPsYUh9TUQexwnBb4ftI Sc9JJzRPJBT99LEGQmM5AgzojwEWnKQL6VET7tiOm/3GlThktsJFrpxN+pUr9+anx5 9fVxHY7/Aje4Iqwnj+vdmh7ip2sbdGzySUSsZ4Iw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47Ps3B3RCnz1nsx6; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:00:54 -0800 (PST)
To: "Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie)" <bduvivie@cisco.com>
Cc: "spring@ietfa.amsl.com" <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <FBE0C15E-FB2E-4195-A60B-3CB2D87209EC@cisco.com> <60B82603-1DC1-4DCC-91F8-9739EEC21A20@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <e1a5053f-04bf-43a4-8dca-31f148e19f50@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:00:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60B82603-1DC1-4DCC-91F8-9739EEC21A20@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/t2y-VPI77VrBiPhFqr2v051slmA>
Subject: Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns
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: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 00:00:58 -0000
I would add another aspect to Kireeeti's comments. Part of the strong push in the WG has been that there is a lot of deployments. While there are many reasons to question that, it is particularly disturbing if those deployments were based on deliberate mis-representations of the IETF process and status. Yours, Joel On 11/29/2019 1:06 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote: > Bertrand, > > It’s naive (and perhaps self-serving on Cisco’s part) to call this > thread irrelevant and to try to shut it down. I applaud Andrew for > bringing this to the WG’s and the IETF’s attention. I feel (personal > opinion) this is something that SPRINGers should know and evaluate for > themselves. > > But you do have a point: perhaps someone should let the Powers That Be > at the IETF know, not just the SPRING WG. I await a Routing AD, the > IETF Chair, marketing or Legal Counsel to say whether this is relevant > and how (if at all) the IETF should respond. > > Kireeti > >> On Nov 29, 2019, at 02:07, Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie) >> <bduvivie@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> SRING WG chairs and members, >> >> If this is not an IETF Business (like suggested by Andrew Alton), I do >> suggest this irrelevant threat to be abandon/drop from the IETF SPING >> mailing list. >> >> BRGDS Bertrand >> >> >> [spring] Thoughts and concerns >> >> Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>Thu, 28 November 2019 >> 15:26 UTCShow header >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WEMigLTseVvQ2Ke_GdycuI7sHKk> >> >> Hi Guys, >> I have some questions - I ran across a document which has me deeply >> concerned - that purports to be written by the authors of SRH and >> makes direct reference to this working group. And since the claims in >> it are deeply worrying - I think its time to ask for some answers. I >> fully realize that well - what people publish outside of the IETF is >> probably no business of the IETF - but, a document that claims to be >> published by the authors of a draft - that makes false claims about >> the working groups very charter - that - concerns me. >> The document itself can be found at: >> https://www.segment-routing.net/images/20191029-02-Update-on-SRv6-standardization-activities.pdf >> Now - here is my issue >> Firstly - the second bullet point in that document runs *DIRECTLY* >> contrary to what is stated in the spring charter - to quote the charter: >> The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the >> home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). >> SPRING WG serves as a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, >> define new applications of, and specify extensions of Segment Routing >> technologies. >> The forth bullet point is really interesting - because I have yet to >> see a last-call for this document on the mailing list - unless I >> missed it - which is explicitly required as per RFC2418 Section 3.2 >> I am not going to bother with the rest of the document - because well >> - people are free to their own technical opinions - but it greatly >> bothers me when the authors of a draft are publishing what are in >> effect blatant untruths in order to promote their work - and I believe >> it should bother everyone in this working group when such appears. >> Thanks >> Andrew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
- [spring] Thoughts and concerns Andrew Alston
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie)
- [spring] FW: Thoughts and concerns Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie)
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] FW: Thoughts and concerns Sander Steffann
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie)
- Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns Martin Vigoureux