[OPSEC] Engaging constructively [HbH flags [Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06]]

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Sat, 08 December 2018 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A29128766; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 02:51:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=cBF5jqyh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=J2Z1TI54
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vgI8Ky5dkAL; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 02:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151CD127133; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 02:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C96421F67; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 05:51:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 08 Dec 2018 05:51:44 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm1; bh=vo9337wWGmeswEm2ZQpmSZh GhW5sT/nP4ojTNzbcgJk=; b=cBF5jqyhHtMF1JlvO7OZ5oJQlJuN5ZSq2IZq2iE OYp9XLM3W8ptsOJS3FMtkf+bYsRO/7ZLufaBy6ZT0ubD7wMDtB+/K7rBsgjvTAlN gkxtsnIRIdxlTa9iNPK8/79eiMkZFXTxBXtCNAbjEdQwv1ypE5CFQ6G2y5m6SWOq lC+tXDraPZXcDE0CtcAEOTHcKHowtNJAWoDuXI/IuyVM2mfINOhrOYa3ufeNf8A1 IRvQhar1kH3cVVUvmHwRuy5katQdC7340DbGrcoiV/QMezCt6syc55GAfDiz8HGN LgnHhPIIEKapuKKqOUjRgeAe1SNSTyexNCBCa/gtbZLuvOQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vo9337 wWGmeswEm2ZQpmSZhGhW5sT/nP4ojTNzbcgJk=; b=J2Z1TI54JnPiIGMAXRIPVH SE76iGrLGtC/JJaFHDckThespw216tw+DAqqsEySYPRe+iG1x4qCMJ25vLalff4F mDqjb1/dikToszTAdVyMlgna38zoNUtmz7gufpyscnCN6La3ZjSJp9A19C7Z9yY3 PhOWt028AdqnaaWBF5oXTs+0RMhPKSGOvphJh+kSMGRD1UK1i5nB1w8IGm9XZ7vu rr19Wz4lEtmK4JejcMDamAfL6JQWMlvKbtLsNRDQ2HxvxxID/W42rSMcCoMT9pD+ N5zPifOu6WrFQLDHuSX5TLqNpY7uVSBcYAqhXiSfYNNsr3bGl0kjDzd53/cf4N0g ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:P6ILXJiWWsW7dMn34RtgkNv7qRQZnUNEA9aeaemTCRMs6YBbgluTLQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtkedrudeguddgvddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuff gjvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlihhsshgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegr lhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucfkphepuddtkedrhedurddutddurdelke enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhen ucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:P6ILXNwSM06ku1UQZWzewb54vCln4GZfvGrmu8B7opAVTjDtMJVU2Q> <xmx:P6ILXEPEIABvtoj5ZUL4g5zRp7UyZh-iIarir4bOAPqUb9B9NFeBIA> <xmx:P6ILXM8tLgJ34Rl3zxsV0O-aJzVeXaHm-jjIJdU23kRjHbQsbOAegw> <xmx:P6ILXEr8GpDcfxz2sRMO8y3wECplm4DGOktFc3TVLDa2Lf-4eDaJ0w> <xmx:P6ILXO7chPvT6Xo2m_7L2dD6uq1Y9lJHRpsWE26Z1ZYqEmr4IePBRw> <xmx:P6ILXJzdOSdMmdTR9AXXqbdsbmk--YTpYJITWraGRZczFRnpFKp3iw>
Received: from alcoop-m-c46z.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-101-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net []) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7E99D102A0; Sat, 8 Dec 2018 05:51:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <FF9E3A57-46FE-4D77-BF4A-C7038A705954@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6AE410EF-E19A-401F-96C9-6357A9300277"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 05:51:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20B602F2-5D9E-4482-9018-58D38EC98C4B@episteme.net>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering.all@ietf.org, ombudsteam@ietf.org, opsec wg mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, tsv-ads@ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, ops-ads@ietf.org
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
References: <977CA53D-7F72-4443-9DE2-F75F7A7C1569@strayalpha.com> <6C50775C-EB67-4236-93B8-DF0259E04167@strayalpha.com> <20181126175336.GW72840@Space.Net> <c959d8cb6f6a04a8da8318cfa89da341@strayalpha.com> <2425355d-e7cc-69dd-5b5d-78966056fea7@foobar.org> <C4D47788-0F3D-4512-A4E3-11F3E6EC230B@strayalpha.com> <8d3d3b05-ecc3-ad54-cb86-ffe6dc4b4f16@gmail.com> <C929A8B9-D65C-4EF7-9707-2238AE389BE3@strayalpha.com> <CAL9jLaY4h75KK4Bh-kZC6-5fJupaNdUfm1gK2Dg99jBntMCEyQ@mail.gmail.com> <C47149DC-CAF2-449F-8E18-A0572BBF4746@strayalpha.com> <728C6048-896E-4B12-B80B-2091D7373D16@strayalpha.com> <8a676a4a-c76d-9fa5-ce79-534a14cf0511@gmail.com> <2386B45D-8AEE-4C95-BB00-A5A2ABF63F8A@strayalpha.com> <e5198c02-ebc6-ee3e-96cb-fd2831164f41@gmail.com> <02AD0268-BFB8-4CA2-8985-08AFE6013ABB@strayalpha.com> <6c071ce7-609b-fcf2-8977-9159afece9ec@gmail.com> <E008EA4B-74D3-4251-BFB8-B88F544B2A99@strayalpha.com> <260f1445-0690-691b-5aea-83b7a43bfdcb@gmail.com> <CAL9jLaYPPiXECcLdCfe35tCwBaSvswObo7skO7pqN2t2TXskqw@mail.gmail.com> <52009CB5-FAA4-47D6-AC05-C16049758663@strayalpha.com> <811D965A-149E-4E33-A526-2CFCB7A1882B@strayalpha.com> <CAL9jLaaEGM49j9nKWb+x_GsakKd2hUhK2U1oW3Vbme5Ot1r42w@mail.gmail.com> <A9084623-1C3E-4203-8046-9C6D0857821A@strayalpha.com> <CAL9jLab=Cbwvvxu2p=wOfeGZ4L4xCfqUCV-uZdOor24R54Fncw@mail.gmail.com> <20B602F2-5D9E-4482-9018-58D38EC98C4B@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/Gjb5m4OLOaPcb3i7aBPlpOqiXzs>
Subject: [OPSEC] Engaging constructively [HbH flags [Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06]]
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 10:51:49 -0000

Thanks Pete.

A few days ago I was about to hit send on a mail reminding people to keep the discussion in the last call threads about this document constructive, but then it in fact did seem to be getting more constructive and some new voices started chiming in. Nevertheless, perhaps it’s useful for everyone to remember to ask themselves a few questions before posting further in these threads (or other IETF threads):

- Am I offering an argument that is designed to persuade someone who I know has a well-established view that is different from mine, or simply to promote my own view?
- Has the point I'd like to make been overtaken by events?
- If I’ve already made my point multiple ways, might it be time to sit back and hear from others?
- Can I make my point without being condescending or demeaning?

I think at this point in the discussion of this document we might also be nearing a place where having the responsible AD summarize the commentary thus far would be useful — I’ll ping Warren on that although I know he was traveling earlier in the week.


> On Dec 7, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
> With my Ombudsperson-hat firmly on my head:
> If you do wish to make a report to the Ombudsteam, please do that in private email; Cc'ing a bunch of mailing lists is an inappropriate venue for such a report.
> That said, it's not clear that this falls under our purview. From the Introduction to RFC 7776:
> The IETF has general policies for managing disruptive behavior in the
> context of IETF activities.  In particular, [RFC7154] provides a set
> of guidelines for personal interaction in the IETF, and [RFC2418] and
> [RFC3934] give guidelines for how to deal with disruptive behavior
> that occurs in the context of IETF working group face-to-face
> meetings and on mailing lists.
> However, there is other problematic behavior that may be more
> personal and that can occur in the context of IETF activities
> (meetings, mailing list discussions, or social events) that does not
> directly disrupt working group progress but nonetheless is
> unacceptable behavior between IETF Participants.  This sort of
> behavior, described in the IESG Statement "IETF Anti-Harassment
> Policy" [Policy], is not easily dealt with by our previously existing
> working group guidelines and procedures.  Therefore, this document
> sets forth procedures to deal with such harassing behavior.
> These procedures are intended to be used when other IETF policies and
> procedures do not apply or have been ineffective.
> Since this is all taking place on public lists, and at least at first glance does not appear to be the kind of "more personal" behavior that RFC 7776 is talking about, it seems like going to the appropriate AD, or WG chair, or IETF list sergeant-at-arms, would be the more obvious first step. But again, first glances are not always accurate, so if you (or anyone) feels that particular behavior has crossed the line into the inter-personal sort (as against simply disruptive), please do not hesitate to drop an email to the Ombudsteam; we're more than happy to discuss it and help resolve it, privately.
> pr
> On 6 Dec 2018, at 23:27, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:11 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 10:28 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com <mailto:morrowc.lists@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:31 AM Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com <mailto:touch@strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>> Additionally, packets don’t emerge from different mole endpoints or are IP  processed in any way. The mold acts like a wire, which is fine. That can be done by IP tunnels too. But not routers that converge and diverge packets. 
> That got mangled by autocorrect.  Packets aren’t supposed to be IP processed by links. To the extent that MPLS does this, it is broken vs the Internet arch.  Remember that MPLS tries to emulate a router path that can’t keep up.  It can - and does - fail to do so correctly in some cases.
> Joe, frankly I'm pretty sad that your behavior here is such as this.
> I would like the IETF Ombudsteam to have a  chat with you are your behavior and your lack of listening to reasoned input from folk who both implement and operate networks, equipment and the protocols which make up the Internet at large. You are not helping your case nor the case of the protocols in question.
> If the ombudsteam are unable/unwilling to interact here I'd like the responsible ADs for ops/tsv to have a chat with you about this.
>> Again, if HBH headers are meaningless and not needed, then go through the proper process and remove them from IPv6. If not, stop trying to hobble this protocol to the point where we all realize why nobody wants to use it. 
>> I think everyone here is actually happy to see v6 progress.
> As am I - in Standards.  It shouldn’t ‘progress’ on ops.
>> note I'm not trying to be intentionally combative, just attempting to say: "the best answer for the user here is PROBABLY to just have the core ignore all the EH business entirely" 
> Again, if they’re not needed, fine. Remove them in Standards.
> However, if the role of ops is to decide what standards to ignore, then perhaps the IESG should reconsider the area’s charter.
> Joe