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

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 01 March 2020 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDCA3A07CE; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 12:37:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFanDUDDdf33; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 12:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B9E3A07CD; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 12:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 021KbQ8s012441 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Mar 2020 12:37:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1583095061; x=1583181461;; bh=db1ifKmKlpyJaMnWApEYI8DGKDH8mxKCjXy0f3FLBsc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZjHDKlc/UXHxwc+AZr7MC/F544NKHDF62x0cRbamsQJJ27KHuCtQm3mBpEluoJWhQ B8BQQcV2hkPn5LkRoCEX/99LIyolsCKdP41gKlY7jRkwiqhJslK1/Oou7TM7vsUEoJ RfvmdLNcRWJkw/s5u+FQ6H1FMTrwcArc87tRAgbk=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 12:36:20 -0800
To: Andrew Alston <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Cc:, Martin Vigoureux <>
In-Reply-To: <DBBPR03MB54150500DA829FBAB73DFEC1EEE60@DBBPR03MB5415.eurpr>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C17421=5F1575566127=5F5DE93B2F=5F17421=5F93=5F1=5F53?= =?utf-8?q?C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48D1A3DA=40OPEXCAUBM43=2Ecorporate?= =?utf-8?q?=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E_=3C5518=5F1582908787=5F5E594573=5F?= =?utf-8?q?5518=5F436=5F1=5F53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48DD1BCA=40OPEXC?= =?utf-8?q?AUBM43=2Ecorporate=2Eadroot=2Einfra=2Eftgroup=3E?= <> <> <> <> =?utf-8?q?=3C6=2E2=2E5=2E6=2E2=2E20200229223634=2E093850f0=40elandnews=2Eco?= =?utf-8?q?m=3E_=3CDBBPR03MB54150500DA829FBAB73DFEC1EEE60=40DBBPR03MB5415=2E?= =?utf-8?q?eurprd03=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 20:37:48 -0000

Hi Andrew,

[Cc to ietf@]

I'll disclose that I am also affiliated with a 
RIR.  I am copying this message to the 
Responsible Area Director [1] for the SPRING Working Group.

At 01:17 AM 01-03-2020, Andrew Alston wrote:
>While some on this list have made references to 
>Bruno’s integrity – let me start by saying – I 
>make no comment on anyone’s integrity – because 
>I don’t know Mr. Decraene well enough to comment 
>on that, and because I find an individual’s 
>integrity in a discussion about if a potential 
>conflict exists to be irrelevant. When people 
>recuse for conflict in any normal environment, 
>it is not because they will act on the conflict 
>necessarily, it is because of perception, 
>because it can taint the issue under discussion, 
>and it leaves the process open to both attack and appeal.

My question was about the process and the role 
with respect to 
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.  I am 
not personally acquainted with Mr. Decraene to 
comment about his integrity.  It has been pointed 
out to me that the person is well-known.  I don't 
see what that has to do with the question which I asked.

There is a message at 
which lists the Responsible Area Director as a 
Contributor.  In my opinion, the procedural 
aspects are problematic.  I commented about a 
somewhat similar topic previously [2].  From what 
I understand, RFC 2026 is applicable for all 
documents coming out of the IETF 
Stream.  According to that RFC, the "procedures 
are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting 
generally-accepted practices".  One of the 
definitions in RFC 7776 is: "A conflict of 
interest may arise if someone involved in the 
process of handling a harassment report is in the 
role of Reporter, Respondent, or 
Subject.  Furthermore, a conflict of interest 
arises if the person involved in the process of 
handling a harassment report is closely 
associated personally or through affiliation with 
any of the Reporter, Respondent, or 
Subject".  The general practice, in such a 
situation, is recusal.  I'll invite the 
Responsible Area Director to comment about 
whether there should be an exception to that practice and the rationale for it.

S. Moonesamy