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

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Enno,

That is how I parse Ole's message. But we can let Ole speak for himself.

                                           Ron



Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: Enno Rey <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG <[e-mail]>; 6man <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; rtg-ads <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Hi Ron,

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Peace Gentlemen,
> 
> For the purpose of this thread, I think that we have all of the information that we need. Consensus regarding header insertion and removal is "evolving". 

not meaning to nitpick and admittedly I'm not super-familiar with all nuances of IETF processes but this means that no type of consensus has been reached yet, correct?

thanks

Enno





> 
> We need to let that evolution progress, and not make any assumptions regarding its outcome.
> 
>                                                         Ron
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:42 PM
> To: Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>; SPRING WG <[e-mail]>; 
> 6man <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; rtg-ads 
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network 
> Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
> 
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i
> > pv 
> > 6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2SjsZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4TwztzwnbH$ ), and you never responded.
> 
> Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be?
> 
> > Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ip
> > v6 
> > /Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2S
> > js ZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4Tw1iPjJAl$
> > 
> > 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".
> 
> > 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?
> 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.
> Perhaps we should let others speak up, if there is anything more to be said on this topic.
> 
> Ole
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> __;!8WoA6RjC81c!TjLEU67_JCgw5HSu4C7UhFOC61xLkOhpmW0Ev51wqvHbECMOysxK3t
> 9RS5pxqO3g$
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Enno Rey

Cell: [phone]
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator