Pablo PC2: The comment started because in the draft we had an example that was assigning A:1::/32 as loopback interface for a router. This is wrong (prefix length, documentation prefix,). This was fixed in revision 2 of the WG draft, published in September 19th 2019. The closure of this comment was presented by me personally in IETF Singapore. Please refer to the slides. In Singapore you were present (signed blue sheet) and did not had any comment about such closure.
This is interesting – so firstly – let me state that because I was present in a meeting and signed a blue sheet to say I was there – in no way indicates that I forgo the right to object after the meeting – and last I checked, signatures on a blue sheet are there to track attendance, not to track consensus. Now, on to the issue at hand – I am curious as to how this closure was presented to you because I just went and checked the spring WG site on trac.ietf.org. I found it rather curious that there is not a *single* ticket on that site – nor is there any closures listed on that site, despite all the work that has gone in. I also point out that I was in that room in Montreal, and the issue related beyond just as a /32 – and the agreement from my reading of it was not to change to an arbitrary number, and declare the issue closed – the agreement was to do an analysis of the address space potentially utilized and present it to the working group – this has not happened. So – can you provide a clear reference to this closure either in a tracker or an email list somewhere? I also point you to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/_SYsvWXQo9t4o2KbJuEiVS-75B4/ Which expressly refers to the lack of discussion that has occurred on this – which appeared way after Singapore. Thanks Andrew
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
