Bertrand, It’s naive (and perhaps self-serving on Cisco’s part) to call this thread irrelevant and to try to shut it down. I applaud Andrew for bringing this to the WG’s and the IETF’s attention. I feel (personal opinion) this is something that SPRINGers should know and evaluate for themselves.
But you do have a point: perhaps someone should let the Powers That Be at the IETF know, not just the SPRING WG. I await a Routing AD, the IETF Chair, marketing or Legal Counsel to say whether this is relevant and how (if at all) the IETF should respond. Kireeti > On Nov 29, 2019, at 02:07, Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > SRING WG chairs and members, > > If this is not an IETF Business (like suggested by Andrew Alton), I do > suggest this irrelevant threat to be abandon/drop from the IETF SPING mailing > list. > > BRGDS Bertrand > > [spring] Thoughts and concerns > Andrew Alston <[email protected]> Thu, 28 November 2019 15:26 > UTCShow header > > Hi Guys, > > > I have some questions - I ran across a document which has me deeply concerned > - that purports to be written by the authors of SRH and makes direct > reference to this working group. And since the claims in it are deeply > worrying - I think its time to ask for some answers. I fully realize that > well - what people publish outside of the IETF is probably no business of the > IETF - but, a document that claims to be published by the authors of a draft > - that makes false claims about the working groups very charter - that - > concerns me.. > > The document itself can be found at: > https://www.segment-routing.net/images/20191029-02-Update-on-SRv6-standardization-activities.pdf > > Now - here is my issue > > Firstly - the second bullet point in that document runs *DIRECTLY* contrary > to what is stated in the spring charter - to quote the charter: > > The Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING) Working Group is the home of > Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6). > SPRING WG serves as a forum to discuss SPRING networks operations, define new > applications of, and specify extensions of Segment Routing > technologies. > > The forth bullet point is really interesting - because I have yet to see a > last-call for this document on the mailing list - unless I missed it - which > is explicitly required as per RFC2418 Section 3.2 > > I am not going to bother with the rest of the document - because well - > people are free to their own technical opinions - but it greatly bothers me > when the authors of a draft are publishing what are in effect blatant > untruths in order to promote their work - and I believe it should bother > everyone in this working group when such appears. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
