IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

otroan@employees.org Thu, 05 December 2019 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0472E1201A3; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:01:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1DktycXRdso8; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42487120073; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:c5ba:f887:5271:a211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA04F4E11AD1; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:01:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F012510737; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 23:01:08 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <bb3be82d-8ea7-6c29-ad0a-61b491ee997d@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 23:01:08 +0100
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8A9BC46E-A018-41C0-BE47-4BABC30EFE79@employees.org>
References: <BN7PR05MB56998A05469327E759B5B671AE5D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3AD3BD11-8C34-41FE-B88F-49A9F2561D78@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569946D6AA5C6B78AFC05F6BAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8DEDE597-B7B0-48F5-959E-69757315C2AC@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4FAB68A3-C533-471D-94D0-3F6EB1F32FC1@employees.org> <1e36a492-5931-02de-cf85-63339522b13a@si6networks.com> <F6DD2C7C-DBBF-4B48-B890-3C86005FB9CF@employees.org> <bb3be82d-8ea7-6c29-ad0a-61b491ee997d@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/O_Bwme-I_HkobxedPUP32GsOnBY>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:01:15 -0000

>>> 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?
> 
> Yes: RFC2026 and RFC2418.

More specifically?
And if you feel you need to the conflict resolution and appeals process is described in rfc2026, section 6.5.

>> 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.
> 
> I don't. Again: unless folks get consensus to update RFC8200, thy should
> comply with it. The onus is on them, not on us asking folks to comply
> with existing standards.

Yes, we have heard your position on this now.
There is of course a lot more nuance to this argument.

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email