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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 5/12/19 18:41, [e-mail] wrote:
> 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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM), and
>> you never responded.
> 
> Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be?

The documents were adopted, or they were not. In this case, they were
not. Hence the current standards need to be complied with, and folks
cannot processes this document with text that results in an outright
violation of RFC8200.


> 
>> Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY
>>
>> 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".

Not sure what you mean. Yes, sure: these are individual contributions.
The authors can do what they please with their individual contributions,
since they don't represent wg consensus. That includes continue working
on them, abandoning them, or simply delete all content and revise the
document as blank documetns with just boiler-plates.

Until the point the wg has adopted such documents, I have no idea
whatsoever why the mere existence of such *individal submissions* should
affect the requirement to comply with our existing specs.



>> 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.


> 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.

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