Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

[[e-mail]]

Andrew,

From: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 8:07 AM
To: Joel M. Halpern; Robert Raszuk
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

The usual practice when a hair o-authors a document is for the co-chair
to manage all aspects of the document life cycle. In this case, due to
the co-chair being unavailable, we have a bit of a problem. For
non-contentious documents, we can easily manage anyway. In this case,
the document is quite contentious. Which makes things complicated.

Yours,
Joel

In any normal circumstance, I would agree there would be far less of a problem – and we could find an simple way to manage this.  This however, is not a normal situation.

You have a write up of the LC – that states “We had to move this document forward” – there is absolutely nothing in the IETF process that states any document has to move forward in the absence of consensus.  The IETF says – we move forward based on consensus, not based on majority will of the working group to move something forward in the face of sustained unaddressed objections.

[Bruno] “Move this document forward” was related to starting the WG LC.
Also the whole point of the text was to say that the decision for the WGLC would be taken by Martin, not me.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/or8086G4iYfee5_Icw4PnhkPLBo/


You have a write up of the LC – which not once – other than in the context of RFC8200 and consensus achieved on that – mentions the word consensus in the context of this RFC – and last I checked, rough consensus was the basis for moving documents forward.
You have multiple issues that have not been addressed – you have a deep point of contention about RFC8200 – you have promises made at the microphone in Montreal (with the chair’s blessing) about providing an analysis of address space used, you have a concern that has been raised about RFC7112, and more and more individuals coming out and saying – we don’t agree with this – for technical reasons.

Now, in light of this – there are going to be questions – particularly in light of the fact that both the chair in question, and the AD in question, have their names on drafts either as contributors or authors which are either the draft in question, or have direct normative references to the draft on question.

Intentional and gaming the process – that I cannot say –

[Bruno] So don’t say.

--Bruno

it is up to each individual to decide on their own action and I do not know these individuals well enough to judge myself, however, I think it is naïve of anyone to believe that there will not be serious questions raised as to the impartiality of participants in the closure  of last call when we are facing such contentious issues, a very clear lack of consensus, and a series of unaddressed issues.

Thanks

Andrew



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.