Hello, Alvaro,
On 3/6/20 15:29, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
[....]> ...
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.
I disagree. Technical point #2 is a different concern than technical
point #3. That's the reason why they have been presented to you as two
different technical points.
So, I don't think your response to technical point #2 answers the
concerns in technical point #3.
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.
FWIW, my take is that many of them have just been ignored. But so be it.
Thanks for your time,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
