+1 srihari…
On 06/10/21, 12:26 AM spring on behalf of Ron Bonica from spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> said > [External Email. Be cautious of content] 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> On Behalf Of James Guichard Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 11:10 AM To: ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Wo2L5Y1OVAJbbyDPRZ7dWsotqBhY-LONV9NDUcg4SQ5bQ6nh9yrYbjvxGq8IwyM$> Sorry – but – I’m a little confused here. Because the way I look at this – the working group clearly stated that they wished for a single behavior – and this – does not deliver that – it is two separate behaviors. As such – I see this call for adoption – irrespective of the merits or lack thereof of the draft, as a clear defiance of the stated will of the working group. This is simply does not fit into the definition of bottom up approach in my opinion – and if this is the way that the chairs wish to proceed – then the only way to do that and still fit within the bottom up approach is to first ask this working group for its consensus to deviate from the single behacvior approach that the working group agreed to. As such – I must strongly and unequivocally object to this call for adoption Andrew From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>> Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 17:05 To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> <spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org>> Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UgHfCuOO1iLosaFP2WimwZG0wZs8K4M207wL2s4XLjVA17cIwtD6MEEk4Y63Kp0-$> 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: 1. The SPRING working group is adopting a document that has multiple SRv6 Endpoint behaviors. 2. The document is a “living” document; it may change as it goes through review and analysis by the SPRING working group. 3. 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. 4. 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 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
