On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: Fernando: Hi! How are you? .... > Note: I fail to see your analysis regarding technical objection #3: Your > analysis focuses on RFC8200 (the focus of technical objection #2), but > doesn't even mention RFC8754 (the relevant RFC for technical objection #3). In relation to technical point 3, the concern you pointed at [SR-V] was resolved in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12 [diff11-12] with text suggested by Brian Carpenter [SR-VA] on the same thread. Given that the resolution is also related to the interpretation of RFC 8200 we decided to group the responses. We should have mentioned this fact before. > For the sake of transparency, while I haven't talked to my fellow > Appellants about your response, I for one plan to Appeal to the IAB to > resolve this issue. That said, I'd appreciate your response to the > comments made above. Except for the clarification above, it is not the intent of the IESG to reply to your other comments at this time. We have already provided carefully considered responses to all points raised in your appeal. We do not believe that continuing the discussion will be conducive to a faster resolution or lead to a different outcome. Take care! Alvaro - for the IESG [SR-V] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Xrcclo0s4pnug9upG9rUinYMv1I/ [diff11-12] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-11&url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-12 [SR-VA] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/QVcsNS_XfRA927S3piCJ4SDYY3k/
