Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note

ber 6, 2019 at 5:07 AM > To: Alexandre Petrescu > Cc: Fernando Gont , 6man WG , > "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > This is really spot on and very brilliant su

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note

Thanks Regards … Zafar From: ipv6 on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 at 5:07 AM To: Alexandre Petrescu Cc: Fernando Gont , 6man WG , "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note Hi Alex, This is really s

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Ole, > I don’t see a need to continue this debate on meta issues, but since you > framed this as criticism of me in the chair role I found it required to reply. Following up now that I had some rest :) I consider you a friend, and I respect you a lot. Which is why the way you were approachi

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 6/9/19 06:26, Ron Bonica wrote: > Ole, > > The IETF does not write de jure standards. At the same time, it must not > blithely progress proposals that ignore existing standards. We need to find a > balance. > > Generally speaking, proposals that conform to the spirit and letter of > existin

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 7/9/19 04:07, Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, 09:00 Tom Herbert, > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM Robert Raszuk > wrote: > > > > Sander, > > > > But this is exactly what both chairs of 6man

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 7/9/19 01:59, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: >> >> Sander, >> >> But this is exactly what both chairs of 6man did with the help of AD long >> time back. You must have missed it ! >> >> And below is a link precisely written to address requirement of jus

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Mark, Thanks for saying what we were all thinking. Ron Sent from my phone On Sep 6, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Mark Smith mailto:markzzzsm...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, 09:00 Tom Herbert, mailto:t...@herbertland.com>> wrote: On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM Robert Raszuk mailto:rob...@ra

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, 09:00 Tom Herbert, wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > > Sander, > > > > But this is exactly what both chairs of 6man did with the help of AD > long time back. You must have missed it ! > > > > And below is a link precisely written to address re

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:11 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Sander, > > But this is exactly what both chairs of 6man did with the help of AD long > time back. You must have missed it ! > > And below is a link precisely written to address requirement of justifying > deviation: > > https://tools.ietf.

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

> My problem is that Fernando is being told to defend the existing RFC. And who told him to do that ? Some one who recommended him to grep for "insertion" string in the text without understanding the full sentences where such world may exist ? Hmmm why would anyone do that ? By that notion it wo

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi, > What consensus has been reached that you are referring to? The consensus on the text of RFC8200. Cheers, sander ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law

Tom Herbert wrote on 06/09/2019 23:26: What consensus has been reached that you are referring to? rfc8200. Nick ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sander Steffann wrote: > > Hi Ole, > > > Proposals are judged on their merits. > > There is no protocol police. > > There is existing consensus, and changing that requires consensus on the > changes. The onus is on those wanting the change, yet you demand the ones

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Robert, > All SRv6 existing specs can progress just fine with that last mode of > insertion being removed if rough consensus in 6man would not get reached. My problem is that Fernando is being told to defend the existing RFC. That is wrong. It is up to the SRv6 proposers to argue and defend

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Ole, > Proposals are judged on their merits. > There is no protocol police. There is existing consensus, and changing that requires consensus on the changes. The onus is on those wanting the change, yet you demand the ones referring to the existing consensus to defend themselves. That is n

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Sander, But this is exactly what both chairs of 6man did with the help of AD long time back. You must have missed it ! And below is a link precisely written to address requirement of justifying deviation: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-06 And let me repe

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

>> I don’t see a need to continue this debate on meta issues, but since you >> framed this as criticism of me in the chair role I found it required to >> reply. > > I expect the chair to uphold a previously reached consensus and put the > requirement of justifying deviating from it with the o

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Ole, > I don’t see a need to continue this debate on meta issues, but since you > framed this as criticism of me in the chair role I found it required to > reply. I expect the chair to uphold a previously reached consensus and put the requirement of justifying deviating from it with the on

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

> > > >> I think you have repeatedly made your point. > > Yes he has, and he makes a good point that should be heard. Your argument of > "RFCs aren't the law, and we can ignore parts of them if it suits us" just > isn't true. RFCs are based on consensus, and ignoring the outcome of that > co

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Ole, > I think you have repeatedly made your point. Yes he has, and he makes a good point that should be heard. Your argument of "RFCs aren't the law, and we can ignore parts of them if it suits us" just isn't true. RFCs are based on consensus, and ignoring the outcome of that consensus whe

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note

Hi Alex, This is really spot on and very brilliant summary of the state we are in ! And since last 25 years rather proved that the first options is not working the choice seems pretty clear that we should rather choose the second one. Best, R. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:57 AM Alexandre Petrescu

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law - non-technical side note

This is a non-technical side note about the Spirit and Letter of the Law in IPv6 WG. In these discussions about IPv6 like routing header, insertion, mutability, 64bit, limited domains, multihoming, smart end dumb network, and numerous other 'tussles', one is supposed to take a side among one of

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Ole, The IETF does not write de jure standards. At the same time, it must not blithely progress proposals that ignore existing standards. We need to find a balance. Generally speaking, proposals that conform to the spirit and letter of existing standards are better than proposals that deviate.

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Fernando, > On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:54, Fernando Gont wrote: > > On 5/9/19 22:30, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:03, Fernando Gont wrote: >>> >>> We have wasted way too much time and energy with all the methafores and >>> curious interpretations of standards by folks pushing

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 22:30, Ole Troan wrote: > > >> On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:03, Fernando Gont wrote: >> >> We have wasted way too much time and energy with all the methafores and >> curious interpretations of standards by folks pushing and/or supporting >> EH insertion, really. > > Pot calling kettle black?

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:20 PM Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hi Tom, > >> >> insertion. For instance, I'd invite you do the thought experiment >> about what happens when an intermediate node inserts a header that >> causes the packet to exceed the MTU of some downstream forwarding >> node. > > > Absol

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

September 2019 22:30 To: Fernando Gont Cc: 6man WG ; Alexandre Petrescu ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function) > On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:03, Fernando Gont > mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote:

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

: Thursday, 5 September 2019 22:24 To: Fernando Gont Cc: 6man WG ; Alexandre Petrescu ; Robert Raszuk ; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function) * draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference to draft-voyer

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

> On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:03, Fernando Gont wrote: > > We have wasted way too much time and energy with all the methafores and > curious interpretations of standards by folks pushing and/or supporting > EH insertion, really. Pot calling kettle black? This is an issue we all know is there. And h

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

> > * draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming has a normative reference > to draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion > > * draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion is about EH insertion > > * EH insertion is forbidden by RFC8200 > > We have wasted way too much time and energy with all t

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Tom, > insertion. For instance, I'd invite you do the thought experiment > about what happens when an intermediate node inserts a header that > causes the packet to exceed the MTU of some downstream forwarding > node. Absolutely. But SRH is meaningful only within a given domain. At least I

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 21:00, Robert Raszuk wrote: > * According to RFC 8200, segment endpoints can insert, change, or > delete extension headers. However, transit nodes that are not > segment nodes cannot insert, change or delete extension headers Seriously? The text in RFC8200 is there with respe

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 18:42, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > Fernando, > > With regard to the last statement in your email "If you create a new > packet, and you put your own address in the SA of the packet, and > encapsulate what you received in the IPv6 payload, you're free to > generate as many EHs as you wi

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 18:31, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Fernando, > > I am taking you extremely seriously ! In fact some of your emails make > me even worried.  > > You say in one email that encapsulation is allowed and that the event of > encapsulation is the same as sourcing.  > > So please notice text in net

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

tension headers. However, transit nodes that are not segment headers >> cannot insert, change or delete extension headers >> >> >> >> Have I read your email, below, correctly? Is this what you are actually >> saying? >> >> >> >>

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

*Cc:* Suresh Krishnan ; 6...@ietf.org; Ole > Troan ; Joel M. Halpern ; > spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about > SRv6 Insert function) > > > > > > 3) Now there's at least one I-D in spring that ignores RFC8200, and

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function) 3) Now there's at least one I-D in spring that ignores RFC8200, and proposes EH-insertion as if it was allowed, essentially circumventing RFC8200, and IETF consensus. Incorrect. RF

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 13:02, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Fernando, Zhenqiang, > > > > You both have valid points. Maybe I am becoming too tolerant of deviations > from the specification. > > I think by definition RFCs are the authoritative definition of how protocols and their implementations are to b

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

ct: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function) On 5/9/19 17:46, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Quote from RFC8200: > >Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not >processed, inserted, or deleted by any nod

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 17:46, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Quote from RFC8200: > >Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not >processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery >path, *until the packet reaches the node* (or each of the set of nodes, >in th

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Quote from RFC8200: Extension headers (except for the Hop-by-Hop Options header) are not processed, inserted, or deleted by any node along a packet's delivery path, *until the packet reaches the node* (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

>As far as I know, but I'm trying to stay away from the actual proposals and ar >gue this generally, no-one is proposing to update the RFC8200 header insertion > text. >What people are proposing are for specific domains. And given that, I believe >people need to argue the technical merits of those

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 17:28, Robert Raszuk wrote: [] > > Now if 6man response to proposl of SRv6 use case for FRR with TI-LFA > will state "IPv6 was not designed for that" - I am fine. As I have reiterated numerous times, nobody is arguing that. My argument is: you can't simply violate specs at will. If

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 17:28, Robert Raszuk wrote: >   > > 3) Now there's at least one I-D in spring that ignores RFC8200, and > proposes EH-insertion as if it was allowed, essentially circumventing > RFC8200, and IETF consensus. > > > Incorrect. RFC8200 makes it black on white clear that inserti

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

> 3) Now there's at least one I-D in spring that ignores RFC8200, and > proposes EH-insertion as if it was allowed, essentially circumventing > RFC8200, and IETF consensus. Incorrect. RFC8200 makes it black on white clear that insertion, deletion and mangling is allowed in IPv6 if destination is

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law

Joel M. Halpern wrote on 05/09/2019 14:11: Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so that we do not have to repeat the arguments. If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, they need to make those arguments.  And they need to make

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hi Ole, On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:05:14PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote: > Fernando, > > >> The IETF is not writing de jure standards. > >> In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it > >> does somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces. one may then wonder

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:35 AM Ole Troan wrote: > > Joel, > > > Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so > > that we do not have to repeat the arguments. > > > > If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, > > they need to make those

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 16:46, Tim Chown wrote: >> On 5 Sep 2019, at 14:05, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> I have not changed my position with regards to header insertion. >> I'm arguing that you should argue technical merit on actual proposals. >> Instead of trying to make RFC documents apply as laws and slap people o

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

> On 5 Sep 2019, at 14:05, Ole Troan wrote: > > I have not changed my position with regards to header insertion. > I'm arguing that you should argue technical merit on actual proposals. > Instead of trying to make RFC documents apply as laws and slap people over > the head with those... You mad

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 16:34, Ole Troan wrote: > Joel, > >> Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so >> that we do not have to repeat the arguments. >> >> If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, >> they need to make those arguments. And they

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Joel, > Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so > that we do not have to repeat the arguments. > > If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, > they need to make those arguments. And they need to make sure that the > discussion

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 16:05, Ole Troan wrote: > Fernando, > >>> The IETF is not writing de jure standards. >>> In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it >>> does somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces. >>> In fact I know of no networking products (or deployme

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is so that we do not have to repeat the arguments. If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now okay, they need to make those arguments. And they need to make sure that the discussion is taken to the re

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Fernando, >> The IETF is not writing de jure standards. >> In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it does >> somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces. >> In fact I know of no networking products (or deployments) that follow the >> intent and spirit

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 11:18, Ole Troan wrote: [...] > > Let me quote Tony Li's response to Fernando's escalation email to the > architecture list: > > "The fact of the matter is that the IETF is completely helpless to prevent > such things. > True, it can block standardization, but if the market wants it,

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 5/9/19 11:18, Ole Troan wrote: > Dear Ron, > > The IETF is not writing de jure standards. > In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it does > somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces. > In fact I know of no networking products (or deployments) tha

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Dear Ron, The IETF is not writing de jure standards. In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it does somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces. In fact I know of no networking products (or deployments) that follow the intent and spirit of RFC8200. I

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Fernando, Zhenqiang, You both have valid points. Maybe I am becoming too tolerant of deviations from the specification. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: li zhenqiang Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Hello all, I don't think we can infer from RFC 8200 that something is mandated and something is strongly suggested. If guys with different interests can infer from an "Internet Standard" what they are interested, the standard is ambiguous and deserves a bis. If the standard is clear, we MUST o

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

On 4/9/19 21:27, Ron Bonica wrote: > Ole, > > Yes, a deep breath and some introspection are always a good thing. > > First, I think that we need to make a distinction between the "spirit" and > "letter" of the law. Next, we need to make a statement regarding good > engineering practice. > > RF

[spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Ole, Yes, a deep breath and some introspection are always a good thing. First, I think that we need to make a distinction between the "spirit" and "letter" of the law. Next, we need to make a statement regarding good engineering practice. RFC 8200 mandates some things. For example, In an IPv6