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

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

I did not read any “accusation” or “attack” in SM’s note, nor anything specifically directed at Bruno, the person, his decision-making, or his character — just a set of question to the AD on potential based on roles and processes.

Thanks,

— Carlos.
PS: There are documents that codify some cases (like RFC 4858, IESG statement on shepherds, RFC 2418, etc.)


2020/02/28 午後5:36、Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>のメール:

Dear Mr Moonesamy,

Let me state that your accusations of Bruno's conflict of interest are simply absurd.

You can count on one hand such chairs like Bruno who not only know very well technology in the WG they are chairing, but also take a very neutral position in accepting or progressing any work by the WG. I know Bruno for over 20 years and never would even think for a second to send such nonsense blast.

Last time I checked IETF does not prohibit chairs to be part of WG documents.

His information about 6man AD not accepting the Errata: 5933 is correct. Errata must be first accepted by an AD then processed further. Since it was posted on 11th Dec 2019 it was still not accepted at first stage. You are mixing AD acceptance / validation with IESG decision. Those are completely different errata processing phases.

I understand when someone is not able to make any further technical arguments, personal attacks start. Awesome !

Have a nice weekend,
RR.


On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:04 PM S Moonesamy <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear Mr Vigoureux,

I am contacting you as you are listed as the Responsible Area
Director for the SPRING Working Group [1].  I would like to thank the
Working Group for providing some information [2] about the status of
the Working Group Last Call.

I was a bit surprised to see that one of the Working Group Chairs is
listed as a contributor in
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.  It is quite unusual
to have the contributor of a Working Group document handle the
Working Group process for the document.  Would there be a potential
conflict of interest?

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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/about/
2. https://mailarchive.ietf..org/arch/msg/spring/or8086G4iYfee5_Icw4PnhkPLBo/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/or8086G4iYfee5_Icw4PnhkPLBo/>
3. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5933

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring