WG,
I wanted to bring more context to my decision.
This document has received a lot of valuable reviews and comments which
improved it. That served me as a base to determine consensus on the
overall document.
The point I'd like to insist on is the one I was mentioning in my
previous e-mail. In my view, the remaining prominent discussion (and
tension) point was about the text of 8200, its implications on the
optional PSP capability, and the ramifications of it.
I have determined there is rough consensus, in SPRING, on the way to
read the specific text of 8200, but also that certain aspects go beyond
SPRING and would benefit from being discussed with a wider community.
I'd like to remind that this was a WG Chair level decision. Indeed,
Bruno still needs to produce the shepherd write-up and submit the
document for publication.
Martin
Le 2020-03-02 à 19:53, Martin Vigoureux a écrit :
WG,
as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating
consensus for this WG LC.
I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that
disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece of text
of RFC 8200 says, and on which this document builds to propose an
optional capability. Since RFC 8200 is not a product of the SPRING WG, I
have paid specific attention to the messages ([1], [2], and [3]) sent by
the responsible AD of 6MAN and of RFC8200.
My overall conclusion is that there is support and rough consensus to
move this document to the next stage.
Bruno will handle the immediate next steps.
Martin
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/67ZG76XRezPXilsP3x339rGpcso/
[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/plidxjZFBnd4_mEzGsLC76FZmQ0/
[3]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uBYpxPyyBY6bb86Y2iCh3jSIKBc/
Le 2019-12-05 à 18:15, bruno.decra...@orange.com a écrit :
Hello SPRING,
This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming [1].
Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version,
and send your comments to the SPRING WG list, no later than December 20.
You may copy the 6MAN WG for IPv6 related comment, but consider not
duplicating emails on the 6MAN mailing list for the comments which are
only spring specifics.
If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically
debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread
for this point.
This may help avoiding that the thread become specific to this point
and that other points get forgotten (or that the thread get converted
into parallel independent discussions)
Thank you,
Bruno
[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
