Bob, [....] >> Bob, >> >> The advice from the chairs seems to be continue discussion. The >> problem with that is that EH insertion has been discussed ad nauseum >> over the past two years since the draft first appeared. It seems like >> we are at the point where the same arguments on the topic are just >> being rehashed on the list. As you mention above, the current >> consensus is that the EH insertion conflicts with RFC8200. Right now >> it seems like further discussion is open ended and without any >> constraints a likely outcome will be attrition and eventual >> acquiescence to accepting yet another non-conformant protocol that >> became so widely deployed so that it can be fixed. > > I think the difference in what is happening now, is that we have two drafts > that are being discussed instead of just volumes of email. This is the > process that should allow us to see if there is a consensus beyond what is in > RFC8200. I won’t speculate what the outcome of this will be.
There is a side "question" on the table: the spring/5man document currently being wglc'ed violates RFC8200. Are we all in agreement that until the point there's consensus to update RFC8200 to allow EH-insertion, our specs should be complied with, and the relevant text should be removed from the spring document? > > IETF standards are voluntary, and are designed to create interoperability > between different implementations. Since we don’t have IETF Protocol Police > we can’t do anything about other approaches. But we do produce standards and have a say on what we publish. >> In light of this, can the chairs or AD provide some guidance or >> expectations on framing any further discussion on the topic to ensure >> that it's productive and the process is moving forward. > > My take is that the discussion of the two drafts in 6man should continue. > Any work that wants to rely an outcome of that discussion, should wait. As > I said earlier, it’s hard to say when that will be done. Otherwise, I think > the other work should be compatible with what is in RFC8200. Agreed. And this answers the question I posed above. Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
