John, > On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:09 PM, john leddy.net <j...@leddy.net> wrote: > > The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any > tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard > and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud > hummers.
To repeat what has been said before, the way to do this is to write a draft that defines how these constraints could be relaxed and build a consensus around that. This has not been completed. We had a constructive discussion on this topic at IETF 106, it’s recorded in the minutes at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-6man-01.txt I have not seen any further discussion after IETF 106. Bob > > >> On February 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >> >> >> I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming >> in the IETF", especially Sections 3 & 6 (it is a short document, you >> should read the whole thing, but pay special attention to these >> sections). >> >> It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards >> -- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with >> - and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this >> category... >> >> W >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:01 PM John Leddy <j...@leddy.net> wrote: >>> >>> +1 in support of moving the document forward. >>> >>> John Leddy >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Zafar, >>>> >>>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) >>>>> <zali=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1, >>>>> >>>>> Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ … >>>>> implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been >>>>> documented in >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status/ >>>> >>>> I think the proper question is there a consensus to advance this document. >>>> >>>> There seems to be questions about its relationship with RFC8200. I am not >>>> seeing this as being resolved. >>>> >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>> i...@ietf.org >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>> i...@ietf.org >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >> idea in the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >> of pants. >> ---maf
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
