Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 07 December 2019 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30298120044; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13yY8RUipepl; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5560A12006D; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 17:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g4so3457986pjs.10; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:15:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZjkuRuhgQJoeIkELJJWkvozGWu5BGf+yq/8t6B62dXY=; b=idpHVKlM9C3bmxn+sBFpPlPOKt3VyV1uSi0yY1KCqL8tLwW3CwR1/mnEAp05y7d5P0 52egEDRiigMxm2UEWJaySDZsoLrLrp+IT2HFASLetlsYAWoBjcGlun1WlWWEJVUy4we4 PAuTqqMsRGD6Er58JEPlsH48gMRhfo55/YCLtaD+YsyNhfliFES46uFrbxNrYYg9q5nG zMPFS0aijJvhNcLpnF22ICHvJ1iXH0IkH777GUY0OrIniqa6GK/GMHarqYQ7gtJsIeEn INs9CRo4Mtmy9AX/x3r9R6du6YJufD+Ub8NN5W+YjER0laTni4RX5xLSyTM8b8IkO30Z 1kyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZjkuRuhgQJoeIkELJJWkvozGWu5BGf+yq/8t6B62dXY=; b=A3UQMdHwLw2/LFIUseFcamXqcM60XRBhv3xgs+rhLpyGVM5ecGF7bf0DVZsSPWIb7K 9eUldOdtM5tngIdldlRdIcT0te6GdsjazH9ZpWuvWRHaGQbcRf00DebqVXaxmQyGv1L2 PgDgkxwH4B92NVKPcWPT4YEmPtI59hJwAmZdp+msUBWY03Qu2K5gG001JTMk8eQyRZUh NRn2zEmbRGfVCN4OVMF+YCGlSPNJ9PaGEpu/HxsGVJhpUuJd9b9F0LzKJxxAXP7HzdhV 5pbF+hhKLgF+fSjUrdtwtyq8hQR7cWoJqYc2dZZJXwiTz/noMuybmcRLpj9BdQjul0Bk P5AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVF5dLcaSrHu92hIAPJ3mQxwODl5mhj4+gvL21e8t0N5CCV8b7E 8EwORcsVwuqJQv8NxAj7Fws=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxI4KpBGd25IiRuouvRrhgash438XS2wfSVriyPRg8Kj/7yYfTuQiKDDqdhZtqwkefyaUNxpg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:62ca:: with SMTP id k10mr19121188pjs.59.1575681351634; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:15:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id g7sm18204453pfq.33.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Dec 2019 17:15:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Andrew Alston <>, Ole Troan <>, Fernando Gont <>
Cc: Ron Bonica <>, SPRING WG <>, 6man <>, "" <>, rtg-ads <>, Bob Hinden <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 14:15:44 +1300
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
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, 07 Dec 2019 01:15:55 -0000


I am a bit confused (not unusual). Can you get back to basics on my questions below?

On 07-Dec-19 11:23, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Ole - so - let me understand something.
> The definition of consensus - among other things - say that all outstanding objections have been addressed (though not potentially resolved).  When you have multiple people saying - a draft violates RFC8200 and that is a concern - 

Are you referring to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05?

If not, the subject header of this thread is a bit confusing.

If so, why are you asking Ole? The WG last call is in the spring WG, with a courtesy copy to 6MAN.

> and if such a thing is required, an update to RFC8200 should be done.

Why does that follow? Alternatively, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming could acknowledge that it deviates from RFC8200. Whether that's acceptable would be a question for the IETF Last Call rather than any single WG.

At the moment, the draft only mentions RFC8200 in a context that discusses neither insertion nor removal of extension headers, which is beside the point. Like draft-voyer, if it describes a violation of RFC8200, shouldn't that be explicit in the text?

There's a lot of jargon in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. I can't tell from the jargon whether "insert" means "insert on the fly" and whether "Pop the SRH" means "delete on the fly". Should those terms be clarified before the draft advances?

> Multiple concerns have been raised - a number of which have not been addressed to the satisfaction of those asking the questions.
> Yet - we now see documents being pushed through to last call 

Erm, that's what Last Call is for - finding the things that haven't been settled. But for draft-ietf-spring-*, it's the spring WG chairs you should be asking, IMHO.


> without these things being addressed.  So I would ask - what exactly do you, as a working group chair propose we do - swallow our technical concerns and our objections and because we've said it once, and it's been ignored or swept under the rug, shrug our shoulders and say - oh well - that’s ok - we tried - and let something we believe to be technically flawed sail through?
> I stood and very clearly stated multiple times that I believe that work on this stuff and the drafts which I am co-author on should continue in parallel - because for one - I believe in some ways - they address different things - yet - at the same time - that does not mean that I believe that we should accept things which we have deep technical concerns about.  
> The engineering must come first - and it seems very clear to me that both myself and others - have significant technical and operational concerns - and I find it rather bizarre that you seem to imply that once these concerns are stated once - we should swallow it and accept a situation where these are not addressed and documents are shoved through to last call in the face of serious technical objection.
> So - please - clarify for me - are you asking us to swallow our objections and just accept something that violates another rfc for which there is consensus just because we asked once, and the issue wasn't addressed - so that makes it somehow disappear?  Or what exactly are you expecting of us?
> Andrew
> On 07/12/2019, 01:02, "Ole Troan" <> wrote:
>     > On 6 Dec 2019, at 22:09, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
>     > 
>     > I don't think there is much room for interpretation here, but anyway I
>     > should ask: are you suggesting that I have attacked or been attacking
>     > the process?
>     I would rather say taking advantage of the process.
>     By reiterating the same assertive arguments again and again you contribute to polarization. Your strategy for consensus building seems to be one of attrition. 
>     If you want to help make the process work, I would encourage you to reconsider that approach.
>     Ole
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------