Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 26/2/20 17:09, john leddy.net wrote:
> The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard and NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud hummers.

1) My understanding is that decisions are taken on the mailing-list.

2) There is a reason for the different maturity levels, and a reason 
why, given a standard, you have to do a formal update if you want to 
change it. And the onus to get consensus is on the folks proposing the 
changes, as opposed to the folks asking for existing specs to be respected.

Rather than wasting our time trying to explain why or how existing specs 
don't apply to you, as well as lecturing folks that spend their time 
helping RFC8200 and previous efforts, you should have probably tried to 
make a case for updating RFC8200.

Nobody is stopping you from coming up with a proposal. We're simply 
kindly asking that you stop trying to violate existing specs, and 
circumvent IETF process.

This whole thing (including previous similar issues while working on 
rfc2460bis), is the perfect example of how individual participation 
(i.e., outside of a small group of big vendors) are highly discouraged 
from participating at the IETF.

It is a shame we have had to insist on this so much.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492