Bruno, I can not speak for anyone else. But I have made clear to the
authors (on list) and the AD (off list) that the current revision of the
document does not provide what I consider adequate explanation of the
consequence of the PSP issues.
If progress is such an important concern, then put out NP without PSP,
and issue a separate document with PSP. The NP document (quite
correctly) does not claim to be a complete compilation of all behaviors
or all flavors.
From other people's questions about the PSP processing, it seems that
the text is still not clear about what SID has the PSP flavor (I think I
know how that is supposed to work, but the degree of accidental
misinterpretation suggests the document could be better.)
Yours,
Joel
On 3/11/2020 2:12 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Fernando,
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 5:06 AM
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 different from what the document on
which you claimed consensus. Besides, the datatracker lists the document
as "in WGLC".
So:
What's the status of this document?
And.. are you planning to do a second WGLC?
The call for comments is closed and I believe people had ample time to review
the document and make comments.
Till then, authors have been working on addressing the received comments, and
updating the document.
Some occasional new questions or points are been raised, but I don't see
anything wrong with this. This may happen after the WGLC (e.g. during AD
review, during IETF last call, during IESG review, and when the RFC is
published via email or errata).
I'm in the process of writing the shepherd write up.
Reviewing all the diff on all versions of the document, I don't see large
technical changes that would require a formal review of those changes though a
second WG last call. Except one change regarding the processing of the upper
layer, that has recently been raised by Chris. Let's see the solution on this.
Other than that, the changes are:
- some editorial clarifications
- removal of OAM references & counters (Greg's comment)
- large editorial changes in the PSP section to provide more clarification and
context and explicit the consequences. But with no change to the technical
behavior.
Do you see a need for a formal review of some changes?
Thanks,
--Bruno
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
