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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:17 AM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

I agree. The questions of motivation and necessity for the protocol
have been raised many times both on the list as well in the f2f now.
These are fundamental questions that should be asked of all protocols.
Asking the WG participants to watch videos and then referring them to
yet another draft to answer their questions is frustrating.

Tom

> 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
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------