Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

2020 9:13 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Darren Dukes (ddukes) Cc: SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; Fernando Gont ; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming On 12-Mar-20 05:0

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

: RE: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Brian, Lots of thanks for a prompt and unambiguous response. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com -Original

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Dukes (ddukes) Cc: SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; Fernando Gont ; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming On 12-Mar-20 05:06, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > Darren, >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Dukes (ddukes) > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2020 4:44 PM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein > *Cc:* Ted Lemon ; Fernando Gont ; > SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > *Subject:* Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 4:44 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: Ted Lemon ; Fernando Gont ; SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Sasha

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

mailto:maojian...@huawei.com>>; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming mailto:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming This is really not helpful, Fe

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

onesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:53 PM > > > > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Rob Shakir > > > > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux > > > > Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move &g

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

> > > > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:53 PM > > > > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Rob Shakir > > > > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux > > > > Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Rob Shakir > > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux > > Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming I'm not seeing the WG in copy. I've checked the public email archive [1] and cou

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

> > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:53 PM > > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Rob Shakir > > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux > > Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - > &g

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Dear Mr Decraene, At 04:48 AM 02-03-2020, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: I would suggest that next time you want the communication to be public, you start it on the public mailing list, so that the whole WG is aware of the whole thread. (Note that this would not change the text in my email)

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Cc: Rob Shakir ; Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org; Warren Kumari Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Dear S Moonesamy, Speaking as an individual contributor, please find below a few comments 1) The below

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

in Vigoureux; Rob Shakir > Subject: RE: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Dear Mr Decraene, > At 12:58 AM 28-02-2020, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > >1) People have the right to express, including to

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

> On 28 Feb 2020, at 01:51, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > Pablo, > > I have been looking at the latest version. See my previous note to Stefano > Salsano. I really think that the problem here is that certain things are > obvious to SRH experts but not to others, and they simply need more >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Dear Mr Decraene, At 12:58 AM 28-02-2020, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: 1) People have the right to express, including to hum sometimes, but decision is not based on the number of "+1". Do you have the impression that the decision is based on some voting scheme? (Assuming the decision was

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

2020 02:25 To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming On Feb 27, 2020, at 3:38 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) mailto:pcama...@cisco.com>> wrote: The disc

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

To: Lizhenbin , "bruno.decra...@orange.com" > , 'SPRING WG List' > Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-n

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

At Thu, 27 Feb 2020 23:41:18 +, "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" wrote: > Hi Jinmei, allow me to address the two technical concerns you raise > in this email, upon which it appears this interpretation of RFC8200 > hinges for you. You state: > > Aside from that this > > interpretation logically

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

t;, "Zafar Ali (zali)" , draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming +1, Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ … implementation, comm

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

To: Ron Bonica Cc: Fernando Gont ; SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming At Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:29:24 +, Ron Bonica wrote

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Jinmei, allow me to address the two technical concerns you raise in this email, upon which it appears this interpretation of RFC8200 hinges for you. You state: > > Aside from that this > interpretation logically doesn't make sense as it's not compatible > with AH or PMTUD, if it could be

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

: Thursday, February 27, 2020 5:57 PM To: Ron Bonica Cc: 神明達哉 ; Fernando Gont ; SPRING WG List ; 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Ron, On Fri, 28 Feb 202

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

t; Juniper Business Use Only > > -Original Message- > From: spring On Behalf Of > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 2:40 PM > To: Fernando Gont > Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; SPRING WG List ; > 6...@ietf.org; Lizhenbin ; > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-netw

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 27/2/20 19:34, Suresh Krishnan wrote: Hi Jinmei, On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:18 PM, 神明達哉 wrote: At Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:29:24 +, Ron Bonica wrote: The question is whether PSP violates the following clause from Section 4 of RFC 8200: "Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Jinmei, > On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:18 PM, 神明達哉 wrote: > > At Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:29:24 +, > Ron Bonica wrote: > >> The question is whether PSP violates the following clause from Section 4 of >> RFC 8200: >> >> "Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not >>

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

At Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:29:24 +, Ron Bonica wrote: > The question is whether PSP violates the following clause from Section 4 of > RFC 8200: > > "Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not >processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 27/2/20 18:29, Ron Bonica wrote: Jinmei, The current discussion is about Penultimate Segment Popping (PSP) (Section 4.16). Normally, when an IPv6 node processes a packet that includes a Routing header with Segment Left equal to 1, the node decrements Segments Left and forwards the packet,

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Thank you for writing this down so well. This is exactly how I feel about this issue too, but you are much better at staying polite :) Cheers! Sander ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

rogramming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming At Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:14 -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: > So... is the plan to ship a document that violates RFC8200? Please forgive me asking some clarification questi

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

ct: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent from: Resent to: , , , , , Resent date: Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 21:57 > In the process all the comments have been resolved Unfortunately, this is not true.

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

tf.org>, Bob Hinden , "Zafar Ali (zali)" Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Bruno, On 27/2/20 05:41, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > Fernando, > >>

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Feb 27, 2020, at 3:38 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote: > The discussion that we are having is about PSP which has nothing to do with > that. So, there is text in the document that addresses Brian’s question? ___ spring mailing list

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

etf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent from: Resent to: , , , , , Resent date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:08 On Feb 27, 2

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

> Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Andrew Alston wrote on 27/02/2020 10:35: > 1. The burn of address space required to adequately deploy some of this > (something that there was agreement on in Mon

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:39 AM wrote: > > So... is the plan to ship a document that violates RFC8200? > > Please forgive me asking some clarification question that seems to be > obvious for others: which part of > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10 violates RFC8200? From > a quick

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 2:27 PM Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > THere is one nuance that is worth noting. It is not for the case of a > controversial document. > > Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether > the working group even cares about the document. I have had

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Two different disagreements with you. First, I did list adoption as well as last call. In adoption the chairs can't very well look back at the adoption to see if there was really support. Second, it is the WG, not the document authors, that send a document to the AD for IETF approval. if the

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Feb 27, 2020, at 2:27 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether the > working group even cares about the document. I have had several cases of > calls for adoption or WG last call where there was almost no response on the > mailing

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

THere is one nuance that is worth noting. It is not for the case of a controversial document. Rather, the case where +1 can be useful is when the question is whether the working group even cares about the document. I have had several cases of calls for adoption or WG last call where there

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Feb 27, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of retrieving > judgement from real group of folks who understand given proposal. We do. It’s called “substantive comments.” > "+1" is just only one demonstration of it. Humming is

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Warren, Excellent note !!! In the past I have been part of an employers forcing you to support a draft just to push it regardless if it was even in your area of interest ... leave alone expertise or your technical opinion about it. It is very unfortunate that IETF does not have a good way of

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:14 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: [SNIP] > > It's possible that "penultimate" means something else, e.g. "ultimate". I > don't know. I've been puzzling over this language for months and it doesn't > change. Maybe someone can finally post an explanation, but until they

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

li)" mailto:z...@cisco.com>>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming mailto:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org>> Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent-From: mailto:alias-

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Fernando, Il 2020-02-27 12:11, Fernando Gont ha scritto: [... removed non-technical discussion] One of their last inventions has been to pretend that IPv6 allows EH insertion/deletion en-route, based on their reading of RFC8200. Based on a curious interpretation of the text, they claim that

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Feb 26, 2020, at 8:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > I don't know about you, but when I see a message whose only content is "+1" I > just delete it. +1 ;-) —John ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Andrew Alston wrote on 27/02/2020 10:35: 1. The burn of address space required to adequately deploy some of this (something that there was agreement on in Montreal that there would be analysis on – which was never done) I'm a bit alarmed by the lack of engagement here between the

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Even if one assumes that the violation has not been proven, I think it has been shown clearly that PSP pushes the limits of 8200. If there is a strong reason for PSP, then pushing those limits is sensible. But the vast majority of the response we are getting to the issue on this list is

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Considering the discussion about how +1’s don’t mean much – I still feel that I need to +1 what Ted said in the below paragraph  It seems to me that there is a belief that if you ignore objections long enough – and shout loud enough – the objections will some how disappear. That if you

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming This is really not helpful, Fernando, and goes some way toward explaining why communication isn’t happening. What

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Fernando, Il 2020-02-27 10:07, Fernando Gont ha scritto: Bruno, On 27/2/20 05:41, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Fernando, -Original Message- From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:45 AM Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Feb 27, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Voyer, Daniel wrote: > You should rephrase that - 1 objection can’t prevent the rest of us to move > forward hence why sometime we need to go with a rough consensus. Rough consensus means all the objections have been addressed, not that everyone agrees. The

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

This is really not helpful, Fernando, and goes some way toward explaining why communication isn’t happening. What I reacted to in Brian’s message is that he asked a really simple question that could be readily answered with a pointer to the text in the document where the answer is given.

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

lose the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week. In the process all the comments have been resolved while some issues is raised again and again with little v

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

...@ietf.org] 代表 Lizhenbin 发送时间: 2020年2月26日 19:55 收件人: bruno.decra...@orange.com; 'SPRING WG List' 抄送: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming 主题: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

However, the PSP behavour doesn't even fit in that fictional interpretation of RFC8200. What PSP does is that, given: B - C routers, when B realizes, after processing the SRH and setting the Dest Addr to the last segment, SegmentsLeft==0, it removes the SRH. This case is not

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Fernando, > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > > Bruno, > > On 27/2/20 05:41, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Fernando, > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont > >> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Brian, Il 2020-02-27 03:29, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto: Stefano, On 27-Feb-20 14:42, Stefano Salsano wrote: Il 2020-02-27 02:14, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto: Eric, On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Writing this without any hat, Please note that on the logical side, it

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 27/2/20 07:27, Ted Lemon wrote: The IETF serves users, not “industry”.  The IETF does not promote. Our job is to make the internet work interoperably. Brian has raised an objection that could be answered, but has not been. It is inappropriate to say that this document has passed last call.

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

) Andrew From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Maojianwei (Mao) Sent: Thursday, 27 February 2020 12:30 To: Lizhenbin ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; 'SPRING WG List' Cc: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: RE: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

送: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > 主题: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Hi Bruno and WG, > The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

; 'SPRING WG List' 抄送: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming 主题: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:45 AM > > Hello, Eric, > > On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Writing this without any hat, > > > > Please note that on the

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 18:52, Dirk Steinberg wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:45 AM Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> Hello, Eric, >> >> On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: >> > Writing this without any hat, >> > >> > Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven"

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 27/2/20 04:51, Dirk Steinberg wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:45 AM Fernando Gont > wrote: Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Writing this without any hat, > > Please note that on the logical side, it still

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 27/2/20 04:51, Dirk Steinberg wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:45 AM Fernando Gont > wrote: Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Writing this without any hat, > > Please note that on the logical side, it still

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:45 AM Fernando Gont wrote: > Hello, Eric, > > On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Writing this without any hat, > > > > Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that > this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. > > Here's the

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

2020 08:57 To: war...@kumari.net; John Leddy Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org; Bob Hinden ; Zafar Ali (zali) Subject: Re: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Based on the value of this doc, it deserves an extension

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

ecra...@orange.com" , 'SPRING WG > List' > *Cc: *"6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming < > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WG

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

g] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week. In the process all the comments have been resolved while some issues is raised again and again with littl

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Stefano, On 27-Feb-20 14:42, Stefano Salsano wrote: > Il 2020-02-27 02:14, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto: >> Eric, >> >> On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: >>> Writing this without any hat, >>> >>> Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that >>> this idea

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Il 2020-02-27 02:14, Brian E Carpenter ha scritto: Eric, On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Writing this without any hat, Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. The draft uses an undefined term

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" , draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent-From: Resent-To: , , John Leddy , , , Resent-Date: Wednesday, February 2

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Eric, On 27-Feb-20 12:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Writing this without any hat, > > Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this > idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. The draft uses an undefined term ("pop") but it does *explicitly* state in a

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming +1 Thanks dan From: Dirk Steinberg Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 12:52 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: Lizhenbin , Bruno Decraene , SPRING WG List , "6..

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

NG WG List , "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" , draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent-From: Resent-To: , , John

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Writing this without any hat, Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot.

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hello, Eric, On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: Writing this without any hat, Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. Here's the proof part: 1) Isn't IPv6 end to end? 2) How do core components of

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

st' > > Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Subject: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Hi Bruno and WG, > The LC has last

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Writing this without any hat, Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the closing of

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

"6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" , > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC > - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > Resent-From: > R

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

John, > On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:09 PM, john leddy.net wrote: > > The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any > tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard > and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

>, 'SPRING WG List' mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: "6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>" <6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming mailto:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org>> Subject: [spring] Request t

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 07:09, john leddy.net wrote: > > The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any > tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard > and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud > hummers. >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud hummers. > On February 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

At Wed, 26 Feb 2020 11:45:14 -0300, Fernando Gont wrote: > So... is the plan to ship a document that violates RFC8200? Please forgive me asking some clarification question that seems to be obvious for others: which part of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10 violates RFC8200? From a

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 26 Feb 2020, at 19:16, Warren Kumari wrote: > > I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming > in the IETF", especially Sections 3 & 6 (it is a short document, you > should read the whole thing, but pay special attention to these > sections). > > It doesn't really

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", especially Sections 3 & 6 (it is a short document, you should read the whole thing, but pay special attention to these sections). It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards -- if there

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

+1 in support of moving the document forward. John Leddy Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: > > Zafar, > >> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) >> wrote: >> >> +1, >> >> Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Zafar, > On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) > wrote: > > +1, > > Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ … > implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been documented > in >

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 26/2/20 14:43, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: +1, Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ … implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been documented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status/ You

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

runo.decra...@orange.com" , 'SPRING WG > List' > *Cc: *"6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming < > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org> > *Subject: *[spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Fernando, > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar] > > On 26/2/20 11:37, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > > > I think that this was expected that this specific LC would last for more > > than 2 weeks. > > > > Summarizing and closing it is on my to do list. (I

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On 26/2/20 11:37, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Hi Robin, I think that this was expected that this specific LC would last for more than 2 weeks. Summarizing and closing it is on my to do list. (I wish my to do list were smaller, or that I throw more $$ or contributors on action items.

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

/OLN; 'SPRING WG List' Cc: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

mming<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming +1 Best Regards Zongpeng Du (cmcc) -- Original -- From: "Chengli (Cheng

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

+1 Best Regards Zongpeng Du (cmcc) --Original-- From:"Chengli (Cheng Li)"mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:19 PM To: Lizhenbin mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

List' mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: 6...@ietf.org<mailto:6...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming mailto:draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org>> Subject: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-prog

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week. In the process all the comments have been resolved while some issues is raised again and again with little value. On the other hand

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week. In the process all the comments have been resolved while some issues is raised again and again with little value. On the other hand

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Bruno and WG, The LC has lasted for almost 3 months which greatly exceeds the expected 2 week. In the process all the comments have been resolved while some issues is raised again and again with little value. On the other hand

  1   2   >