Re: [spring] Penultimate Segment Popping and RFC8200 (Was Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping))

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/12/19 08:16, [e-mail] wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>> From: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fernando
>> Gont Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 1:55 AM
>> 
>> On 7/12/19 15:40, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>> Hi Fernando,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The online possible instantiation of "Destination Address" as in
>>> RFC8200 is the final destination of the packet.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No. That is incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Hint: Please read carefully RFC2473.
>> 
>> If you think a document on tunnels rules how IPv6 operates, and
>> its end-to-endianness, then you have a huge problem reading specs.
>> 
>> So I will not enter that game, because it would be accepting to be 
>> mocked at.
>> 
>> I'll wait for a few days for our INT AD's response (Suresh), a
>> response from the spring chairs (if any), and a response from the
>> RTG AD(s).
> 
> I'm not sure what response to what question you expect from spring
> chairs.

My understanding is that this is a clear objection to the document "as
is", and that since this document is violating an existing spec, it
would be unfeasible to declare consensus to move the document forward
"as is".


> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is under WG LC: this is
> the time for everyone to comment on the document and hopefully
> improve it. At this stage, I'd rather not influence the discussion.

My question to you as a chair is:
Can this wg request publication of the document knowing that it violates
a specification that is not under the control of this wg, and that there
is no consensus to change that spec at the corresponding wg (6man)?




>>> From: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> Fernando Gont Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 6:43 PM The online
>>> possible instantiation of "Destination Address" as in RFC8200 is
>>> the final destination of the packet.
> 
> It appears to me that, at minimum, multiple opinions have been
> expressed on this point, including from Suresh.

At the end of the day, it is fine for Suresh to have his opinion. HOwever,

1) His mandate will eventually end, so he obviously cannot make
commitments past the date he mandate ends.

2) MOre importantly, this document is being produced by spring, under
the RTG area. So while the INT ADs can make up their minds how they
would block the document if it eventually gets to them, ultimately it's
the spring chairs and RTG AD's call what this wg ships and requests
publication of.



> So, assuming that by
> "online" you meant "only", the statement "only possible" seems
> excessive to me. But I have noted your reading of RFC8200 and your
> objection, which I believe concern the PSP and USP 'flavors' sections
> 4.16.1 and 4.16.2 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05#section-4.16

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492