+1 to Ron’s comments. —Colby
> On Oct 5, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > Jim, > > The call for adoption has already been posted. There is no way to put that > toothpaste back into its tube. However, I strongly recommend against such > calls for adoption in the future. > > Normally, the authors of a document are encouraged to answer technical > questions as a condition of adoption. Bullet points 1, 2, and 4 in the call > for adoption defer that requirement until WG last call. Could this be why > technical questions are not being addressed during the call for adoption. > > In some extreme conditions, it may be necessary to modify the usual call for > adoption procedure. But these exceptional conditions have not been > articulated. > > It is unfortunate that two of the three working group chairs are also > co-authors of the draft. While there may not have been any impropriety, the > appearance of impropriety is difficult to avoid. > > > Ron > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of James Guichard > Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 11:10 AM > To: ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com > <mailto:ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com > <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org > <mailto:spring@ietf.org>> > Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/> > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > Andrew, > > As stated in our email of September 9th, the chairs communicated that the > working group reached rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one > data plane solution to compress segment routing over IPv6. In addition to > this there was an inclination toward using the CSID document as the basis for > our work in this area. The chairs recognized that there was however > disagreement as to whether this document, having multiple SRv6 EndPoint > behaviors, could be considered consistent with the working group consensus > for a single data plane solution. This issue quite clearly needed to be > addressed, and the chairs, recognizing that the working group is keen to make > progress in this area, had the option of trying to resolve the issue prior to > issuing an adoption call, or give the working group the opportunity to > express their opinions as part of a call for adoption. > > Those who feel that we need to resolve the consistency issue before adoption, > as with those who think this is not a good basis for the WG work, are free > and expected to object to the WG adopting the document. That is distinct from > objecting to the chairs issuing the adoption call. > > In essence, the chairs have combined the question of when to resolve > consistency and the question of whether this document is a good basis for the > WG into one call. > > Yours, > > Jim, Bruno & Joel > > > From: Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com > <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> > Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:21 PM > To: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com > <mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org > <mailto:spring@ietf.org>> > Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: WG Adoption call for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/> > > Sorry – but – I’m a little confused here. > > Because the way I look at this – the working group clearly stated that they > wished for a single behavior – and this – does not deliver that – it is two > separate behaviors. As such – I see this call for adoption – irrespective of > the merits or lack thereof of the draft, as a clear defiance of the stated > will of the working group. > > This is simply does not fit into the definition of bottom up approach in my > opinion – and if this is the way that the chairs wish to proceed – then the > only way to do that and still fit within the bottom up approach is to first > ask this working group for its consensus to deviate from the single behacvior > approach that the working group agreed to. > > As such – I must strongly and unequivocally object to this call for adoption > > Andrew > > From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com > <mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>> > Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 17:05 > To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>> > Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> > <spring-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org>> > Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UgHfCuOO1iLosaFP2WimwZG0wZs8K4M207wL2s4XLjVA17cIwtD6MEEk4Y63Kp0-$> > Dear WG: > > The chairs would like to express their appreciation for all the responses > received to our emails with reference to how the working group wishes to move > forward with respect to a solution for SRv6 compression. > > The apparent inclination of the working group is to use > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fdraft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression*2F&data=04*7C01*7Cjames.n.guichard*40futurewei.com*7C5e0d0fdb84404b53517108d98519075f*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C637687164816496052*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=*2BVsL9*2BHgyiQLb7*2FoAY437Vek4bhHWMrl3KdoTPbAnGU*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UgHfCuOO1iLosaFP2WimwZG0wZs8K4M207wL2s4XLjVA17cIwtD6MEEk4fN3O0eM$> > as the basis for its compression standardization work. That is part of what > this email attempts to confirm. > > Because of the above the chairs would like to issue a 2-week WG call for > adoption ending October 15th for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fdraft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression*2F&data=04*7C01*7Cjames.n.guichard*40futurewei.com*7C5e0d0fdb84404b53517108d98519075f*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C637687164816506046*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=67Ot32mHEqz0JXCc01*2BuI6I1WPOzrwrCTEp3rp9cVE8*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UgHfCuOO1iLosaFP2WimwZG0wZs8K4M207wL2s4XLjVA17cIwtD6MEEk4dinC8Ry$> > but with some clear guidelines as follows. By expressing support for > adoption of this document you are fully aware of and are acknowledging that: > > The SPRING working group is adopting a document that has multiple SRv6 > Endpoint behaviors. > The document is a “living” document; it may change as it goes through review > and analysis by the SPRING working group. > All open discussion points raised on our mailing list MUST be addressed > BEFORE said document is allowed to progress from the working group to > publication. A list of these discussion points will be documented in the WG > document and maintained by the document editor in conjunction with the chairs. > If this document is adopted by the working group, the chairs specify as part > of the adoption call that the following text describing an open issue be > added to the document in the above-described open issues section: > "Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one data > plane solution, and given that the document contains multiple SRv6 EndPoint > behaviors that some WG members have stated are multiple data plane solutions, > the working group will address whether this is valid and coherent with its > one data plane solution objective.". > > Please consider the above guidelines as you decide on whether to support or > not this WG adoption. Please express clearly your reasoning for > support/non-support as well as any open discussion points you would like > addressed should the document be adopted into the working group. > > Thanks! > > Jim, Bruno & Joel > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
