<snip> > This is absolutely false! > Have you forgotten the very strong arguments against it at the Spring session > in Montreal and the various emails on the list that echoed them 😉 > Not to mention comments from Robert R > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/6bdX_gb47uFYnd6ytwFLPYxXCYo).
Arguments against a proposal in the IETF are meant to be judged on technical merit. Yes - I heard arguments in Montreal about previous work done on alternatives and about srv6+ supposedly being late to the party - but the technical arguments - those I didn’t hear, maybe I missed them, so, if I did, I apologize, and perhaps you can assist us it in telling us what they were. As I have said to others - if there are technical problems with the stuff we are working on here - put those issues on the table - and where possible speaking for myself here - every effort will be made to accommodate - but - you are late to the party - is not a valid argument. > Yes, indeed Ron presented the proposal to every workgroup possible in > Montreal, only to find no interest from anyone. > I would advise you to read that silence differently. 😉 I would advise taking a close read on RFC7282 - specifically section 2. And as a final thought: One of the things that was being said - was that network programming took years to develop etc - well - in this industry years - is a lifetime - and sometimes if something takes years - an alternative will arise during that development cycle - that either addresses needs in a different manner that is more efficient, or addresses additional needs beyond those addresses by the original still in progress ideas. That I would argue is the sign of a healthy developing industry that is getting contributions from people who have perspectives beyond that of the proposer of the original idea. That - is called progress Andrew _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
