Re: [spring] Question about SRv6 Insert function

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 4/9/19 05:23, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello, Suresh,
>> 
>> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: [....]
[....]
>> 
>> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or
>> leave the IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has
>> had consensus that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be
>> bad, wastefull, tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go
>> through the whole publication process, and just rely on the AD to
>> keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed.
>> 
>> Put another way: what'd be the rationale for having a draft-ietf
>> and have the corresponding wg ship the document with something that
>> clearly goes against IETF consensus, and that the relevant AD has
>> declared that wouldn't let pass?
> 
> In short, this is not the case. I am *not* the relevant AD for the
> SRv6 Network Programming draft. If this document was in 6man I would
> have flagged it much earlier like I did for the SRH draft.

Sorry, what I meant by "relevant AD" is: "one of the responsible ADs for
the spec that's being violated".

i.e., isn't there in the IETF process -- whether formal or informal --
for this sort of thing to be flagged before documents get too far in the
publication process?  ("Hey, this document in your area is actually
breaking a spec of one of my wgs" sort of thing...)

Thanks!
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1