Ted,
> The situation here is that all the objections appear not to have been
> addressed, and that agreed-upon supporting work has not been done (and nobody
> wants to do it).
Let me recall:
1.- draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming contained a section about SRH
insertion by a transit node
2.- There were objections on whether this is allowed
3.- There was an agreement of:
3.a.- Move the SRv6 behaviors that relied on SRH insertion by a transit node
from the NET-PGM document into a new document
3.b.- Have the previous draft with a normative reference to a 6man draft where
the details of Extension Header insertion by a transit node discussion would
happen at 6man
3.a has been done (draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion). This work is
waiting progress on 3.b.
3.b. is work in progress in here (draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion).
Neither 3.a nor 3.b are the object of the discussion that we are having here.
The discussion that we are having is about PSP which has nothing to do with
that.
I would suggest that before you jump to your conclusion you refer to the SPRING
working group mailer archives where extensive discussions have happened
resulting in draft updates to address comments.
Cheers,
Pablo.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com>
Date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:09
To: "Voyer, Daniel" <daniel.vo...@bell.ca>
Cc: "Maojianwei (Mao)" <maojian...@huawei.com>, Lizhenbin
<lizhen...@huawei.com>, "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
<bruno.decra...@orange.com>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6...@ietf.org"
<6...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
<draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC -
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org>
Resent to: <c...@cisco.com>, <pcama...@cisco.com>, <j...@leddy.net>,
<daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>,
<lizhen...@huawei.com>
Resent date: Thursday, 27 February 2020 at 14:08
On Feb 27, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Voyer, Daniel <daniel.vo...@bell.ca> wrote:
> You should rephrase that - 1 objection can’t prevent the rest of us to
move forward hence why sometime we need to go with a rough consensus.
Rough consensus means all the objections have been addressed, not that
everyone agrees. The situation here is that all the objections appear not to
have been addressed, and that agreed-upon supporting work has not been done
(and nobody wants to do it).
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
