Hi all,
We've submitted a new revision of draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn.
This version includes some editorial changes based on the previous -06 version,
which have solved the comments received before and during IETF 106 meeting.
The authors believe this document is ready for WG adopt
Thanks Greg for your review comments. Please see inline with ..
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:09 AM Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Dear Rakesh,
> my apologies for the belated response and comments that you can find below:
>
>- as I understand, the draft is applicable to TWAMP Light mode,
>mentioned in
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 03:55:02PM -0800, Alex Bogdanov wrote:
> To add my 2c, I am OK with the declaration of consensus for this
> draft. This draft is >2y old and had been the subject of extensive
> collaborations on the mailing list, many revisions, many working group
> meetings and last call 3
Folks,
Have we made a final decision about meeting in Vancouver?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Hi all,
SPRING is not meeting in Vancouver.
I personally can't go to Vancouver due to corporate travel restrictions. And
there is no other co-chair.
I'll cancel the slot request.
--Bruno
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 5:32 P
On 10 Mar 2020, at 10:41, Nico Williams wrote:
...the process we have for
dealing with complaints is heavily biased against plaintiffs -- which
is
probably as it should be, as otherwise we might never get anything
done,
but then legitimate complaints don't get heard. I feel OP's
frustration.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:13 PM Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2020, at 10:41, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> > ...the process we have for
> > dealing with complaints is heavily biased against plaintiffs -- which
> > is
> > probably as it should be, as otherwise we might never get anything
> > done,
Andrew,
Please see inline the answers with PC2.
Also, I guess that by mistake, your inline emails remove this text from your
original email and my reply to it. Let me copy paste it in here to make sure it
is not lost.
From Andrew on March 2nd:
The promises to deliver an assessment of IP Space
Hi Chris,
Thanks for going through the document.
The behaviors 4.13 (End.B6.Encaps), 4.14 (End.B6.Encaps.Red) and 4.15 (End.BM)
correspond to Binding SIDs [1].
As a result of 4.13 for example, the packet is encapsulated with a new IPv6
header and an SRH that contains the SR policy associated to
Pablo, in your reply below you say that the text in 8200 is "crystal
clear". It requires an interesting lens to find something "crystal
clear" about which so many people have expressed so much disagreement.
While a lawyer may claim to a judge that text in a contract is crystal
clear, it is alm
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:11:47PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2020, at 10:41, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> > ...the process we have for
> > dealing with complaints is heavily biased against plaintiffs -- which is
> > probably as it should be, as otherwise we might never get anything done,
On Mar 10, 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> What I've encountered is that at the limit you have to appeal or give
> up, and how well things go before you get to that stage depends on how
> willing WG chairs and responsible AD are to actively mediate dispute
> resolution.
>
> The case I fel
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for going through the document.
> The behaviors 4.13 (End.B6.Encaps), 4.14 (End.B6.Encaps.Red) and 4.15
> (End.BM) correspond to Binding SIDs [1].
>
> As a result of 4.13 for example, the packet is e
So,
As one of the people that openly supported the original request for resignation
by Sander - I felt that - it may be helpful to understand from my side *why* I
so strongly supported it - and why I believe, still, that it was a fair option.
Firstly - let me say this - there are several outsta
Nico,
On 11-Mar-20 07:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:11:47PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2020, at 10:41, Nico Williams wrote:
>>
>>> ...the process we have for
>>> dealing with complaints is heavily biased against plaintiffs -- which is
>>> probably as it should b
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 03:07:53PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> > What I've encountered is that at the limit you have to appeal or give
> > up, and how well things go before you get to that stage depends on how
> > willing WG chairs and responsible
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:54:36AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11-Mar-20 07:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> > If you get left on the rough side of consensus, whether rightly or
> > wrongly, and you wish to challenge this, it's really difficult. You
> > might have to file an appeal,
>
> Well
On two specific points:
On 11-Mar-20 12:55, Nico Williams wrote:
> Q: How many appeals have there been, and how many have succeeded?
Officially, the history is at:
https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/appeals/
https://www.iab.org/appeals/
I think a lot of the responses are midway between
All you have to do is ask :-)
That's the awesome part about appeal transparency.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:56 PM Nico Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:54:36AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 11-Mar-20 07:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> > > If you get left on the rough side of cons
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 01:23:17PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On two specific points:
>
> On 11-Mar-20 12:55, Nico Williams wrote:
> ...
> > Q: How many appeals have there been, and how many have succeeded?
>
> Officially, the history is at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/appe
On 10/3/20 14:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
[...]
I realize that +1 is largely content free, but I believe that appeals
and recalls are an incredibly important part of the IETF process -
they are the reason that we can have a process which uses rough
consensus (not voting), and where our process has
On 10 Mar 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:11:47PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
Nico, could you (or others) expand on this?
Yes. Challenging consensus is difficult. People with substantive
commentary sometimes get tanks driven over them.
It is difficult, and
Folks,
Ping?
On 6/3/20 06:25, Fernando Gont wrote:
Marting & Bruno,
May I ask what's the status of this I-D? -
On one hand, both of you declared consensus to move it forward. On
another hand, the authors keep making changes to address comments (good)
so what the wg will ship will be diffe
Hi Jie,
I don’t think it’s time to call for adoption. Teas Slice DT is still working on
the definition and the framework of the transport slice，which has not been
accepted by the teas working group.
For the draft, I have some comments:
1.Compared with the ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn, It seems like
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:54:03PM -0400, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 10 Mar 2020, at 14:45, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> This to me says that we've got to start dealing with the disputes
> earlier in the process to avoid the "annoy and anger" part (though
> sometimes that will be unavoidable). At the ti
25 matches
Mail list logo
