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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 6/12/19 23:44, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Comment at the end...
> 
> On 07-Dec-19 14:31, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 6/12/19 21:07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 07-Dec-19 12:22, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 2:57 PM Brian E Carpenter
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07-Dec-19 10:22, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/19 17:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[,,,,]
>>>
>>> If draft-voyer- ends up published in the Independent Stream, that
>>> would be fine by me.
>>
>> I wonder how the EH insertion document does *not* conflict with the work
>> of any existing WG
> 
> Well, 6man has no current work item on EH... except draft-voyer- or
> draft-smith-, if we choose to adopt one or both. (In case it isn't
> obvious, where we are right now is in a discussion *before* considering
> WG adoption, since there's been no adoption call from the chairs.)
> 
>>  -- or for instance, existing standard.
> 
> The rules for independent submissions don't forbid that, but they do
> require that it is stated:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846#section-2
> "Any submission that constitutes an alternative to, or is in conflict
> with, an IETF Standard or proposal for Standards-Track adoption must
> clearly indicate that relationship."
> And of course the IESG is given a chance to review the draft according
> to RFC5742.

Agreed.

That, as you correctly noted, is different from having an IETF document
that represents IETF consensus. And of course is of no use as a
reference that backs why an IETF-track document is violating a spec, though.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492