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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:06 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> You should absolutely continue the discussion.
> Let me share a secret with you. Please don't share.
> The 6man working group has been tasked by the IETF leadership to
> ensure engaging discussions all year around.
> I have not been told the hidden establishment agenda behind this,
> but I can only presume that it is to keep the IPv6 enthusiasts
> away from affecting the real work being done in other areas of the IETF.
>
> The leadership has tasked us with circulating the discussions between the following topics:
>  - 64 bit boundary
>  - M/O bits
>  - ULA or not ULA
>  - Extension headers
>  - Defining new mechanisms for IID formats
>
> There is a scheduled switch to the M/O bits topic in mid January.
> Please continue to the good work on EH in the meantime.
>
Ole,

Bear in mind that quality discussion is real work by those
participating. It is a lot of effort to carefully read drafts, give
clear feedback, and respond to rebuttals. I would like to think that
the work individuals put in is justified by the outcome, and I assume
it the chairs prerogative to steer the discussion as necessary to
drive towards a discernible outcome in a finite amount of time.

Tom

> Ole
>