IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Resignation request

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 04 March 2020 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CCF3A0DDB; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 20:30:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ILuavFwt90I; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 20:30:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D24333A0DDA; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 20:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [119.94.165.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF6B23648E2; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 05:30:26 +0100 (CET)
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <3EF6505C-D442-41A4-A681-26ACF818BB4D@sobco.com> <C7B7787A-48E5-407F-9E81-BDEC2F1B2169@steffann.nl> <6651697D-A892-4CAB-BDC1-E385750294D3@gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <a708fc17-c799-2767-4a35-033b063456f5@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 12:30:22 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6651697D-A892-4CAB-BDC1-E385750294D3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PZbEgCPcc93J8lA0zU43mfhVleI>
Subject: Re: [spring] Resignation request
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 04:30:34 -0000

Stewart, et.al.,

First, there has been some ambivalence regarding what the issue with
an AD taking this type of decission.

- there is no doubt that an AD may take this decision, module enough
   involvement in the wg and giódd understanding of the issues

- it might be discussed if the right decision were taken, from my
   point of view (personal opinion) I can live with this decision

Comment on Stewart's comment inline.


On 03/03/2020 20:32, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2 Mar 2020, at 21:43, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I have no information about the situation but I do not understand why an AD would be declaring consensus in any case -
>>> that is normally the responsibility of WG chairs.  see RFC 2418 section 3.3
>>
>> The only active/available WG chair was a co-author of this draft.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sander
>>
>>
> 
> 
> As a WGC that has been in a position where the chairs had a CoI, I(we) asked the WG Secretary to manage the document, and that is what other WGs do. Look at the DetNet data plane drafts as an example. That means that the decision is taken at the lowest level and leaves the AD continue in the oversight role.

Yes - a much better practice. You could also appoint working group chair 
from another group as "shepherd" and explicitly delegate the task to
call consensus after the wglc.

I think that PALS did this for me once when both chairs were draft
authors.

/Loa

> 
> Anyway from the discussion on the list this probably need to go for review by the other two RTG ADs to check that they are happy with the decision or to recommend some other action.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email