I would add another aspect to Kireeeti's comments. Part of the strong
push in the WG has been that there is a lot of deployments. While there
are many reasons to question that, it is particularly disturbing if
those deployments were based on deliberate mis-representations of the
IETF process and status.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/29/2019 1:06 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
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
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WEMigLTseVvQ2Ke_GdycuI7sHKk>
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
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
