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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 7/12/19 08:39, [e-mail] wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>> Is it really a serious way to try to achieve consensus to routinely fail
>> to answer the questions that wg participants ask .. which one might
>> argue that should have already been in version -00 of the document?
> 
> If it is not something I would consider productive use of the working groups
> time, nor mine, I refrain to answer questions that have both been asked
> and answered before. I am not aware of any unanswered questions.

PLease let me clarify:
This document has been around for about two years. It doesn't contain a
motivation, not even a reference to RFC8200, and a note why they need to
do this, and what something else doesn't work for them.

I asked that question numerous times. Do you really think that, two
years later, I should be directed to a video to find the answer, instead
of the authors inclusing the motivation in the draft?

The draft had 18 authors at some time... I don't think I'm asking much.

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