Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 2/3/20 11:16, [e-mail] wrote:
[...]
>> The summary provides by the Working Group Chair states that the
>> Responsible Area Director "has not accepted the related errata".  I
>> took a quick look at erratum eid5933; it is listed as "Reported".  As
>> the erratum has not been classified as per the relevant IESG
>> Statement, describing it as "not accepted" is inaccurate.
> 
> The email from Suresh that I had cited in support of my statement, seemed and still seems clear to me.
> 
> What was not clear to you in Suresh's email?
> 
>>   I will process this and move it to the "Hold for Document Update" state
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tRn94-NlupHLcWdzo7O9BfHpiik/
> 
>>> Just to be clear, I believe that your stated decision of processing this errata as "Hold for document update" is not only incorrect, but also doesn't represent the consensus this working group got during the rfc2460bis effort -- now RFC8200.
> [...]
>>   > As such, I will formally Appeal your decision.
>>
>> Please do go ahead. I stand by my assessment that this is a misuse of the Errata process and it is not a simple clarification as you claim."
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yVKxBF3VnJQkIRuM8lgWN4_G3-o/
> 
> 
> Please take another look now. Suresh has updated the status of the errata. I guess that your point is now moot.

It's not moot that you based your decision on wg consensus on something 
that had not yet happened. The fact that the errata was marked as "held 
for document update" days *after* you made your decision should be a 
datapoint.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1