Last I checked,
1. Issue trackers in Github are not mandatory 2. The slide check presented by the authors at the meeting is significantly newer and far more up to date So – which do you wish us to rely on – what the authors are reporting in their slide deck at a meeting held far more recently than that repo was updated – or a repo that clearly ignores what the authors themselves acknowledge? I’m a little confused at what you are trying to say here – I gotta admit Andrew Internal All Employees From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Date: Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 14:13 To: Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-i...@liquid.tech> Cc: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>, spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org>, spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 Andrew, In IETF process issues should be opened by those who claim their existence not by the authors of the document. And repo shows 5 closed issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-spring/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed Maybe authors could keep latest version of the draft in there, but this is usually chairs decision how they do version control on active WG documents. Cheers, R. On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:02 PM Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-i...@liquid.tech> wrote: Interesting Robert, That entire repo is entirely empty – was last updated on Feb 11th – and directly conflicts with the slide deck presented at 119 which expressly lists the checksum issue as an open issue. As per https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-spring-compressed-srv6-segment-list-encoding Andrew Internal All Employees From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Date: Wednesday, 27 March 2024 at 13:58 To: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org<mailto:n...@foobar.org>> Cc: Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-i...@liquid.tech>, spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> <spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org>>, spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11 Nick, So which part of RFC7282 ? In tracker I see zero open issues: https://github.com/ietf-wg-spring/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/issues All issues have been addressed. So what is the problem ? Thx, R. On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:43 AM Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org<mailto:n...@foobar.org>> wrote: Robert Raszuk wrote on 27/03/2024 10:13: > WGLC on this doc started Jan 22nd - Today we have March 27th - was the > result of the working group's last call announced and I missed it ? > Looking at the list it seems this draft got pretty overwhelming support > already. Why are we not progressing ? What is holding us ? rfc7282. Consensus is not weight of numbers. Nick
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
