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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 075001201A3; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:29:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 c0lw50dw-8qb; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 804D3120046; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id x185so2401863pfc.5; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:29:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=Fhb4VUolEb7RppOSEOUI3ep5fDQ/QEoLdoyzquaWQ+Y=; b=TWgDBXng6AL/rKxFwsdrGh2lcECeGlmuRz4N+n8XyeSncz+ekuC976PQs9UTL0cj2y qVohb0PbBekZ3UBVzfCEiyjKTFLgClTU4wC+LxLNsm/GQaJ801cGhICKeohF+TgkMcCb zlSzvyHaHTJJdd7n4pThciaaKMXOHUNbqFb+0PL1LoCSVFiEJHzeQHGrKb1qQCfQbo+d wKyrsYP99dm4SlZeSlTH05Jtot7DRVYPRB3FVm0DMfS1WnjvSgp/OlGyJzgMEW6h1mn6 w1wDtLMsqBaJPqvI1yCY9Wmcw2sQYtLkLr8jpsql419EPC5r6L96lASp7DlXbLc5DB8z HoMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=Fhb4VUolEb7RppOSEOUI3ep5fDQ/QEoLdoyzquaWQ+Y=; b=VGgU0r4rVZAyrZSkzUbVqGrncxUd4cWuhI6xiiP4x3x8Da3fB2y96SXBPihVvFyRIj LQa3NWG9/2nlakhGq8g8lQpTSSw6QO0dln9g8peBjV1wkEFlqtZ3UooULvHm9TKU///Z YTrohebBFTs2thXrLj0Xlv9Vg9FFP2dyw65amIwinX5hSO/QrsANJ/EVngUwE02TuSbh Ld+JVBqpay817TiSucKj2X3EtxBhjrRoRNF0w+ZpLSTMY6+QqCNSuChbr2apYQNHf9QH bmG5F+Z60pjxUs1vFr++RSQJyZb26wFGFm83yXGp+gXbqzZtF63+5PgySnSpodVz/MYB RvIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXvNAG1qrKzZnQxFFdc/TImSj3OCg3uiYLa9ZYhsqd2m1CiK4YT T+SqoDahyvo4GohOu/VZpYudkQxf
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzYDqZrB2qNYgz8GTHPokSPFepaq6a5zx7whBIarGXERQ/I+PqX4TXn+zqoS2gnXn2LGwcXSQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:642:: with SMTP id 63mr432673pgg.73.1575592192656; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb90:a49f:ebc4:653a:e218:e4b0:ba78? ([2607:fb90:a49f:ebc4:653a:e218:e4b0:ba78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u26sm12876133pfn.46.2019.12.05.16.29.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB5699EA5F4C041538560282A6AE5F0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:29:51 -0800
Cc: Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-Id: <52132FA9-669E-4B32-BDC8-6F06C98315F3@gmail.com>
References: <BN7PR05MB5699EA5F4C041538560282A6AE5F0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17B111)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/wobM9BkQBHsMPkAIN0vvEbHdgGg>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:29:56 -0000

Hi,

> On Dec 5, 2019, at 16:20, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Enno,
> 
> That is how I parse Ole's message. But we can let Ole speak for himself.

To clarify, the current consensus is the text in RFC8200.   

There is discussion ongoing in 6man on this topic, but it is impossible to say how that will turn out, or when. 

Bob


> 
>                                           Ron
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de> 
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:48 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
> Cc: otroan@employees.org; Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>om>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>rg>; int-ads@ietf.org; rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote:
>> Peace Gentlemen,
>> 
>> For the purpose of this thread, I think that we have all of the information that we need. Consensus regarding header insertion and removal is "evolving". 
> 
> not meaning to nitpick and admittedly I'm not super-familiar with all nuances of IETF processes but this means that no type of consensus has been reached yet, correct?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Enno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> We need to let that evolution progress, and not make any assumptions regarding its outcome.
>> 
>>                                                        Ron
>> 
>> 
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: otroan@employees.org <otroan@employees.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:42 PM
>> To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
>> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; 
>> 6man <6man@ietf.org>rg>; int-ads@ietf.org; rtg-ads 
>> <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network 
>> Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
>> 
>> Fernando,
>> 
>>>>> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?
>>>> 
>>>> The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft).
>>>> For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob, but I think he will agree with it being classified as "evolving".
>>> 
>>> I polled you about this decision
>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i
>>> pv 
>>> 6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2SjsZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4TwztzwnbH$ ), and you never responded.
>> 
>> Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be?
>> 
>>> Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ip
>>> v6 
>>> /Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2S
>>> js ZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4Tw1iPjJAl$
>>> 
>>> Suresh noted that there wasn't consensus call, even at the f2f 
>>> meeting (not to mention that the list was never polled in this respect).
>> 
>> Right, neither of these two documents are adopted as working group documents. And perhaps a more correct phrasing above would be that "The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that work could continue on both of these documents".
>> 
>>> I would say that it seems we have not been following the processes 
>>> that should be followed. This has happened repeatedly over time, for 
>>> this very same topic. The process seems to be biased, and thus 
>>> unfair to the rest of the wg participants.
>> 
>> Which process are you talking about? Is that documented in an RFC?
>> You seem to take it on yourself to represent the "rest of the wg participants", but from my perspective it looks like a few very loud voices.
>> Perhaps we should let others speak up, if there is anything more to be said on this topic.
>> 
>> Ole
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> __;!8WoA6RjC81c!TjLEU67_JCgw5HSu4C7UhFOC61xLkOhpmW0Ev51wqvHbECMOysxK3t
>> 9RS5pxqO3g$
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
> Enno Rey
> 
> Cell: +49 173 6745902
> Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------