Excellent point, Joel! Kireeti
> On Nov 29, 2019, at 16:01, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
