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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:30 PM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > On Dec 5, 2019, at 16:20, Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Enno,
> >
> > That is how I parse Ole's message. But we can let Ole speak for himself.
>
> To clarify, the current consensus is the text in RFC8200.
>
> There is discussion ongoing in 6man on this topic, but it is impossible to say how that will turn out, or when.
>
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.

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.

Thanks,
Tom

> Bob
>over the
>
> >
> >                                           Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Enno Rey <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:48 PM
> > To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; rtg-ads <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote:
> >> Peace Gentlemen,
> >>
> >> For the purpose of this thread, I think that we have all of the information that we need. Consensus regarding header insertion and removal is "evolving".
> >
> > not meaning to nitpick and admittedly I'm not super-familiar with all nuances of IETF processes but this means that no type of consensus has been reached yet, correct?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Enno
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> We need to let that evolution progress, and not make any assumptions regarding its outcome.
> >>
> >>                                                        Ron
> >>
> >>
> >> Juniper Business Use Only
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:42 PM
> >> To: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG <[e-mail]>;
> >> 6man <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; rtg-ads
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network
> >> Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
> >>
> >> Fernando,
> >>
> >>>>> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?
> >>>>
> >>>> The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft).
> >>>> For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob, but I think he will agree with it being classified as "evolving".
> >>>
> >>> I polled you about this decision
> >>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i
> >>> pv
> >>> 6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2SjsZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4TwztzwnbH$ ), and you never responded.
> >>
> >> Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be?
> >>
> >>> Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here:
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ip
> >>> v6
> >>> /Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2S
> >>> js ZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4Tw1iPjJAl$
> >>>
> >>> Suresh noted that there wasn't consensus call, even at the f2f
> >>> meeting (not to mention that the list was never polled in this respect).
> >>
> >> Right, neither of these two documents are adopted as working group documents. And perhaps a more correct phrasing above would be that "The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that work could continue on both of these documents".
> >>
> >>> I would say that it seems we have not been following the processes
> >>> that should be followed. This has happened repeatedly over time, for
> >>> this very same topic. The process seems to be biased, and thus
> >>> unfair to the rest of the wg participants.
> >>
> >> Which process are you talking about? Is that documented in an RFC?
> >> You seem to take it on yourself to represent the "rest of the wg participants", but from my perspective it looks like a few very loud voices.
> >> Perhaps we should let others speak up, if there is anything more to be said on this topic.
> >>
> >> Ole
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests:
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >> __;!8WoA6RjC81c!TjLEU67_JCgw5HSu4C7UhFOC61xLkOhpmW0Ev51wqvHbECMOysxK3t
> >> 9RS5pxqO3g$
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > Enno Rey
> >
> > Cell: [phone]
> > Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------