Andrew, Inline. PC1.
Regards, Pablo. From: Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> Date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 20:56 To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org> Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming <draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent to: <c...@cisco.com>, <pcama...@cisco.com>, <j...@leddy.net>, <daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>, <lizhen...@huawei.com> Resent date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 20:56 I am completely stunned by this. The question regarding RFC8200 is still unaddressed. PC1: PSP complies with RFC8200. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6ZNyPMuZaaP9amVRXQdX9uRMbVk/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pGS5O53VTDSt2tpc7mm3FVVd0Xk/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/i0faTfqB-NduzI2VyMyQ6R60dQw/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kV6By4pnvbURdU1O7khwPbk_saM/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/plidxjZFBnd4_mEzGsLC76FZmQ0/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/C20J-h835TJYHH2Q4KCHaS_lmek/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/65GgH7fY3_TDEbE7dNXwSz64l58/ The promises to deliver an assessment of IP Space burn as per what is on video from the montreal meeting – was not delivered on or addressed PC1: Authors do not recall such a promise. Can you please point me at either a) an email URL; b) SPRING WG meeting minutes; c) SPRING WG meeting recording (with precise minute and seconds) where such promise happened? PC1: Also, I do not understand the issue or what “IP Space burn” you talk about. Please see this: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/34s0MNMsXe7lTYJr1jw-xBpoRp0/ Was this your question? The issues around the potentially problems in relation to rfc7112 – have never been addressed or commented on. PC1: RFC7112 considerations apply to all extension headers including SRH. I do not understand the relevance of it with Network Programming draft. And – there are other issues which will be raised within the appeal(s) that are now coming – that’s just what comes to mind. Further to this – how consensus can be declared on a document that was changed 2 hours before the declaration – with the changes directly relating to the issue at question – before anyone had had a chance to digest or comment on those changes? How can there be consensus on something that half the world has not had a chance to read because time zones alone declare that they are asleep! Absolutely amazing Andrew
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
