Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492