Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 28 May 2020 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 1D8F73A1009 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lUmfVPLaemW9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A3D3A0FF1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:f802:117c:8c81:54c7] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8801:f802:117c:8c81:54c7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6E10283938; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:37:57 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
To: otroan@employees.org, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
References: <8A5DB52F-5355-484D-8E70-02247C2DF88E@bell.ca> <4FE8C14C-421D-45D5-A1DE-D48E66AAC652@bell.ca> <VI1PR03MB5056782F1E77C7B5D22A8B9FEE8E0@VI1PR03MB5056.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <0bf27e50f7e346cd86d7b25faba75554@boeing.com> <202d9944-5f32-dd0f-cc0e-c57a7783eedd@foobar.org> <B84E5766-D9F7-431B-A7A9-2AADC70AE024@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <afeb3494-b221-b21e-da40-0cbcf8aa8967@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:37:14 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B84E5766-D9F7-431B-A7A9-2AADC70AE024@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qGnpSNH4XKyhyBHVBTBVNgwI5Jk>
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, 28 May 2020 16:38:03 -0000

On 28/5/20 12:36, otroan@employees.org wrote:
>> +1 on this.  Also, hats off to Ole for explicitly acknowledging
>> that this is a vendor proxy war.
> 
> As far as I can tell this behaviour started with the adoption of the
> SRH document and has continued ever since. The SR-PGM appeal is
> another example of collateral damage.

The SR-PGM appeal is the result of folks like myself becoming fed up
about processes not being followed, and rules being apparently bent in
favor of companies with an agenda.

The "process" started more or less at RFC2460bis-time (see: [1]),
continued with subsequent efforts to punch a hole in RFC8200 (see: [2]), 
and ended with the SR-PGM document dismissing comments at will.  After 
trying numerous times to get the relevant chairs and ADs involved
(see: [3]) and still being ignored, we proceeded with Appealing the 
decision, as we had promised.

FWIW, SRH itself (like other Spring stuff) had been portrayed more or 
less as a document we simply had to rubber-stamp because there were 
several companies with big pockets willing to pay for it, and because 
the document contained a full page worth of authors from multiple big 
companies. The document was also pushed with very twisted 
interpretations of RFC2460 claiming "ambiguities" that the same people 
later opposed to clarify in RFC8200 (as per [1])


Some of us simply want that:

1) Relevant WGs get to take the decisions they are meant to take 
(including wg adoption of documents) -- i.e., that the rights of the wg 
and wg participants be respected -- , and that,

2) Rules apply to all of us in the same way, no matter who sponsors 
proposals, or how much money there is to be made with them.

(which can be summarized as "be fair, and follow the due processes", or 
simply as "follow the due processes")


If anybody has benefited from the Appeal in what seems to be this fight 
over Routing Headers, that has simply been an unintended side effect. In 
fact, some of us tried so many times to get the Spring and RTG ADs 
involved (both off-list and on-list), that it would be quite difficult 
for anybody to infer that we were willing to do a formal Appeal (as 
opposed to resorting to it because there was no other option left to us).


What happened, already happened (let's just hope that there's no need to 
fight for 1) and 2) to be applied/take place).

But let's call the lemon a lemon: The Appellants have no blame for the 
disaster described in 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/I1rChA9NrN91knc12h5y9zA5iTQ/ 
. And it worries that in that light, you somehow suggest that we 
appellants have played a role in the alleged "Karpman drama triangle".


References:

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/j1O11x4ICMUWGJmzlJfCx0y0-c8/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/ql8V9MegVkXjlB7P-eTeLW6BhjI/

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6gw13SyIAnQlp9-NCpEyXaozQYg/

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492