Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de> Thu, 05 December 2019 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <erey@ernw.de>
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 52CEE1201A3; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:47:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 rRYA1LvLlGQZ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.ernw.net (mx1.ernw.net [IPv6:2003:60:4010:10a0::11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6324F1200EF; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.ernw.net (unknown [172.31.1.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail1.ernw.net", Issuer "ernw ca1" (verified OK)) by mx1.ernw.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CA032740F; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 23:47:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ws26.ernw.net (ws26.ernw.net [172.31.1.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ws26.ernw.net", Issuer "ernw ca1" (verified OK)) by mail1.ernw.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6900742FF52; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 23:47:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by ws26.ernw.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id EE1BF4E35A; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 23:47:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 23:47:46 +0100
From: Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20191205224746.GA9697@ernw.de>
References: <BN7PR05MB56998A05469327E759B5B671AE5D0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3AD3BD11-8C34-41FE-B88F-49A9F2561D78@cisco.com> <BN7PR05MB569946D6AA5C6B78AFC05F6BAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8DEDE597-B7B0-48F5-959E-69757315C2AC@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56996FFC117F512EEA04AFC8AE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4FAB68A3-C533-471D-94D0-3F6EB1F32FC1@employees.org> <1e36a492-5931-02de-cf85-63339522b13a@si6networks.com> <F6DD2C7C-DBBF-4B48-B890-3C86005FB9CF@employees.org> <BN7PR05MB56993D964D47CD871AD8C17FAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB56993D964D47CD871AD8C17FAE5C0@BN7PR05MB5699.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/lDgYd1VgkOyPatepnDr3ZNPq96E>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:47:52 -0000

Hi Ron,

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Peace Gentlemen,
> 
> For the purpose of this thread, I think that we have all of the information that we need. Consensus regarding header insertion and removal is "evolving". 

not meaning to nitpick and admittedly I'm not super-familiar with all nuances of IETF processes but this means that no type of consensus has been reached yet, correct?

thanks

Enno





> 
> We need to let that evolution progress, and not make any assumptions regarding its outcome.
> 
>                                                         Ron
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otroan@employees.org <otroan@employees.org> 
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:42 PM
> To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>et>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>rg>; 6man <6man@ietf.org>rg>; int-ads@ietf.org; rtg-ads <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
> 
> Fernando,
> 
> >>> Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?
> >> 
> >> The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that we should continue work on both documents (Mark's and the Voyer draft).
> >> For the state of the wg consensus, I haven't checked with Bob, but I think he will agree with it being classified as "evolving".
> > 
> > I polled you about this decision
> > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv
> > 6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2SjsZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4TwztzwnbH$ ), and you never responded.
> 
> Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be?
> 
> > Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6
> > /Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2Sjs
> > ZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4Tw1iPjJAl$
> > 
> > Suresh noted that there wasn't consensus call, even at the f2f meeting 
> > (not to mention that the list was never polled in this respect).
> 
> Right, neither of these two documents are adopted as working group documents. And perhaps a more correct phrasing above would be that "The working group session in Singapore ended with what appeared to be a view that work could continue on both of these documents".
> 
> > I would say that it seems we have not been following the processes 
> > that should be followed. This has happened repeatedly over time, for 
> > this very same topic. The process seems to be biased, and thus unfair 
> > to the rest of the wg participants.
> 
> Which process are you talking about? Is that documented in an RFC?
> You seem to take it on yourself to represent the "rest of the wg participants", but from my perspective it looks like a few very loud voices.
> Perhaps we should let others speak up, if there is anything more to be said on this topic.
> 
> Ole
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Enno Rey

Cell: +49 173 6745902
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator