RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

[Cc to ietf@]

I'll disclose that I am also affiliated with a 
RIR.  I am copying this message to the 
Responsible Area Director [1] for the SPRING Working Group.

At 01:17 AM 01-03-2020, Andrew Alston wrote:
>While some on this list have made references to 
>Bruno’s integrity – let me start by saying – I 
>make no comment on anyone’s integrity – because 
>I don’t know Mr. Decraene well enough to comment 
>on that, and because I find an individual’s 
>integrity in a discussion about if a potential 
>conflict exists to be irrelevant. When people 
>recuse for conflict in any normal environment, 
>it is not because they will act on the conflict 
>necessarily, it is because of perception, 
>because it can taint the issue under discussion, 
>and it leaves the process open to both attack and appeal.

My question was about the process and the role 
with respect to 
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.  I am 
not personally acquainted with Mr. Decraene to 
comment about his integrity.  It has been pointed 
out to me that the person is well-known.  I don't 
see what that has to do with the question which I asked.

There is a message at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3zbi71sjcJ8KaFgVIrF2Ymx4GC8/ 
which lists the Responsible Area Director as a 
Contributor.  In my opinion, the procedural 
aspects are problematic.  I commented about a 
somewhat similar topic previously [2].  From what 
I understand, RFC 2026 is applicable for all 
documents coming out of the IETF 
Stream.  According to that RFC, the "procedures 
are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 
generally-accepted practices".  One of the 
definitions in RFC 7776 is: "A conflict of 
interest may arise if someone involved in the 
process of handling a harassment report is in the 
role of Reporter, Respondent, or 
Subject.  Furthermore, a conflict of interest 
arises if the person involved in the process of 
handling a harassment report is closely 
associated personally or through affiliation with 
any of the Reporter, Respondent, or 
Subject".  The general practice, in such a 
situation, is recusal.  I'll invite the 
Responsible Area Director to comment about 
whether there should be an exception to that practice and the rationale for it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/about/
2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xBjDAIM4hdnSTyxL7QHlbiFX3eE/