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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

I am a bit confused (not unusual). Can you get back to basics on my questions below?

On 07-Dec-19 11:23, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Ole - so - let me understand something.
> 
> The definition of consensus - among other things - say that all outstanding objections have been addressed (though not potentially resolved).  When you have multiple people saying - a draft violates RFC8200 and that is a concern - 

Are you referring to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-05?

If not, the subject header of this thread is a bit confusing.

If so, why are you asking Ole? The WG last call is in the spring WG, with a courtesy copy to 6MAN.

> and if such a thing is required, an update to RFC8200 should be done.

Why does that follow? Alternatively, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming could acknowledge that it deviates from RFC8200. Whether that's acceptable would be a question for the IETF Last Call rather than any single WG.

At the moment, the draft only mentions RFC8200 in a context that discusses neither insertion nor removal of extension headers, which is beside the point. Like draft-voyer, if it describes a violation of RFC8200, shouldn't that be explicit in the text?

There's a lot of jargon in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. I can't tell from the jargon whether "insert" means "insert on the fly" and whether "Pop the SRH" means "delete on the fly". Should those terms be clarified before the draft advances?

> Multiple concerns have been raised - a number of which have not been addressed to the satisfaction of those asking the questions.
> 
> Yet - we now see documents being pushed through to last call 

Erm, that's what Last Call is for - finding the things that haven't been settled. But for draft-ietf-spring-*, it's the spring WG chairs you should be asking, IMHO.

Regards,
  Brian

> without these things being addressed.  So I would ask - what exactly do you, as a working group chair propose we do - swallow our technical concerns and our objections and because we've said it once, and it's been ignored or swept under the rug, shrug our shoulders and say - oh well - that’s ok - we tried - and let something we believe to be technically flawed sail through?
> 
> I stood and very clearly stated multiple times that I believe that work on this stuff and the drafts which I am co-author on should continue in parallel - because for one - I believe in some ways - they address different things - yet - at the same time - that does not mean that I believe that we should accept things which we have deep technical concerns about.  
> 
> The engineering must come first - and it seems very clear to me that both myself and others - have significant technical and operational concerns - and I find it rather bizarre that you seem to imply that once these concerns are stated once - we should swallow it and accept a situation where these are not addressed and documents are shoved through to last call in the face of serious technical objection.
> 
> So - please - clarify for me - are you asking us to swallow our objections and just accept something that violates another rfc for which there is consensus just because we asked once, and the issue wasn't addressed - so that makes it somehow disappear?  Or what exactly are you expecting of us?
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> On 07/12/2019, 01:02, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     
>     
>     > On 6 Dec 2019, at 22:09, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > 
>     > I don't think there is much room for interpretation here, but anyway I
>     > should ask: are you suggesting that I have attacked or been attacking
>     > the process?
>     
>     I would rather say taking advantage of the process.
>     
>     By reiterating the same assertive arguments again and again you contribute to polarization. Your strategy for consensus building seems to be one of attrition. 
>     
>     If you want to help make the process work, I would encourage you to reconsider that approach.
>     
>     Ole
>     
>     
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>