Re: [spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming? Wed, 11 March 2020 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96F63A107E for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 awUB1Cz66up4 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE683A1023 for <>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48d0Rh0H1pzBrtH; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:12:32 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1583950352; bh=VpXeRaKj7e3S3zTwu4dWv45n4XPro6gmCctR3Mgugp0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=j9m37zEuJnH6CNzopW60ZO+gQZ7xFb5lATf14jFabkPrgYwNIFJ8ksyO+i270vFjQ /5LSGlmm2KFXfXc7z1HDLMUkQ1WkIqmQGZzE8gyk68IiuftA6GckILBhgmXjMWXiXj rPlcqw2EmJDHpsM+21udDSQsCR3JoDAUQ6ZZIFzuQHhXTuGlSaHAX3Lsm/huiA1F3j DwS50LLVoZ5aOsIzRDUx8aLQibCzVVNcBg5N6IyeXAk4uEimAYRME1lXkTXExjPOcA rKylxf6XpmHSsk342Mt2Yrq6sgqaeq9WdVsnqNp7ofs76rfynR2NJfSXPqA+ccUvf9 saktdrfMRevHg==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.29]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48d0Rg6Rq2zCqkV; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:12:31 +0100 (CET)
From: <>
To: Fernando Gont <>, Martin Vigoureux <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?
Thread-Index: AQHV91pfdFFrcOEG4kyAcm4IIygfOqhDqzmQ
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:12:31 +0000
Message-ID: =?utf-8?q?=3C26051=5F1583950351=5F5E692A0F=5F26051=5F192=5F1=5F5?= =?utf-8?q?3C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DE621C=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?=
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Status of 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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:12:37 -0000


> From: Fernando Gont [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 5:06 AM
> Folks,
> Ping?
> On 6/3/20 06:25, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > Marting & Bruno,
> > 
> > May I ask what's the status of this I-D?  -
> > 
> > On one hand, both of you declared consensus to move it forward. On 
> > another hand, the authors keep making changes to address comments (good) 
> > so what the wg will ship will be different from what the document on 
> > which you claimed consensus. Besides, the datatracker lists the document 
> > as "in WGLC".
> > 
> > So:
> > What's the status of this document?
> > And.. are you planning to do a second WGLC?
> > 
> > 

The call for comments is closed and I believe people had ample time to review the document and make comments.
Till then, authors have been working on addressing the received comments, and updating the document. 
Some occasional new questions or points are been raised, but I don't see anything wrong with this. This may happen after the WGLC (e.g. during AD review, during IETF last call, during IESG review, and when the RFC is published via email or errata).
I'm in the process of writing the shepherd write up.

Reviewing all the diff on all versions of the document, I don't see large technical changes that would require a formal review of those changes though a second WG last call.  Except one change regarding the processing of the upper layer, that has recently been raised by Chris. Let's see the solution on this.
Other than that, the changes are:
- some editorial clarifications
- removal of OAM references & counters (Greg's comment)
- large editorial changes in the PSP section to provide more clarification and context and explicit the consequences. But with no change to the technical behavior.

Do you see a need for a formal review of some changes?


> > Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: ||
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.