Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Sander Steffann <> Fri, 28 February 2020 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14AB3A1CD1; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:51:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OaDLLWFyjNOU; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A2643A1CA6; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:51:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C852752; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:51:09 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1582919467; bh=T82eBqZCOknbkPIwluz rCHs3d8dtJBjTWlDxQGrVqLM=; b=i9XDxftuLP/x+7eXzrYEb/pJnkOiN5UMCPx PX6vJMWXS7vY2O+yhY0TLMg4qDigQzJ8WI/VIvEd/H8TNhW3egshJLZ3O2LZlnOt XWsdfU8tUPx/2lMzKzWelfSsHk+QSGKhs+zD4HWuBh7cWMcYfsiKbsXciDz06tV/ u9LYNWkg=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id fKtPAWOzsMho; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:51:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:d99f:7257:bc1b:f895] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:d99f:7257:bc1b:f895]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 292E751; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:51:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A813335C-330B-4709-A2C6-7FFC18E5C6B5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:51:05 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5518_1582908787_5E594573_5518_436_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <>, 6man WG <>
References: <17421_1575566127_5DE93B2F_17421_93_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5518_1582908787_5E594573_5518_436_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - 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: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 19:51:46 -0000

> ===============
> D) formal decision to advance this document
> ===============
> I'm listed as a contributor on this document (among 23 contributors).
> Even though I have zero specific write/modification privilege on the text in this document, and I'm not part of the authors email alias, this would not be ideal for me to take the decision to forward this document to the IESG. I've discussed this with our AD (Martin) and he agreed to make the formal decision to send the document to the next level. Thank you Martin.
> As an element of context, I handled this WG LC not for the fun of it or because I believed it would easy, but because we needed to advance this document and that Rob was not available to take that role.

Wait, what?!  There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the IETF or any other consensus based forum... Based on the discussions on the mailing list (including questions on why PSP is so important that we can't take it out for now which have never been clearly answered by the authors) I can't see you can possibly declare consensus.

If there is going to be an appeal I will certainly put my signature on it.

I also find the behaviour of the WG chairs does not befit their responsibilities.