IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> Fri, 06 September 2019 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@herbertland.com>
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 61071120E13 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 fIkds-s4p-Jx for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C350120E0B for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id p2so6713046edx.11 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=herbertland-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ftYbA7dX1l5WM+HucczE1G+SPljeKRmffWJHqMsD0tE=; b=S6mNItsTEkt7GWp2L1rZPFT0jGAJjCGo5v4k1iFqV7yzAtTNROCdqRP14ryasdFwkn r3p6Y/UnZ9s2HxFhA1QqKrRdFazbtcj7QH2JbSMOGHZetO/ZLwW+kBUj7uhnOcE15IWO y4Kf/6sS8h4HJZFCs6hRmDw56LgiSl2Aysc8G/3F1jgM0aeRNeNi11EeC0YEgY5hfBZj J6tC6fUxYLG/PI4CVgPM/GpEI3mQczZqPsRH2S9xp4mPv6poueH3i9hpCIFQs/jcbjHx ODBRPIM1jCyUQxyzvYhf2wbduYokUQvsn4qkCt/H+ItNI0v3J1V8nTJpQaA+flWx3sVz yrCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ftYbA7dX1l5WM+HucczE1G+SPljeKRmffWJHqMsD0tE=; b=reWeXue2RmC0zpA8SqXoI+krnFSinbaYR86j3LsxSJyuLXhtkWxYBHtl++6XopK5rp AgxE7AYSuu6oVAREm31u56mGJlKRkeusUrYsS8mRBgRjJ/FjL2NAzSL3iDPdUOxkA9bO jKaJRee1TTbxRHthF+eQu19wf/1zXOCJvDX6tjOjazyUauJ+Ir/3jWTVm1KOheYGYmiz //ntOKggWjLAKWCx8GVZh0IXKEUnLw+o34w9dGUGjqGvM4MACmZfr99RNyIIHWwlsH8W mJ1V7LIYlDoXQxZHjAdEdWGlQMVZbljgnD0ykCMA26H4wxQmY9d5Ti9s5X2qamTylb6w 29DA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXn6osFcmpg2NMc1ZoMerKOGoQIdKru5J9bgeqLZNxrPy157P92 1juAiSpVd8NhHeBEyIsnyb1xpZuCkDMLfqEHXts+qA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy7t6RKxKGT5vMw1BJuw68FXv7WsIcbtJapusnYDZvV5GqB5kkzLtPWGbZ3MADSmMcNQ5pcV6L7J08XkYRigVs=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:30d1:: with SMTP id b17mr9664367ejb.9.1567808830819; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EDB1ACFD-3924-4599-B95D-D1FC6FF2425A@steffann.nl> <4246BC68-CD23-4D51-9E41-5812AAD5F3D4@employees.org> <0D67ABBC-1EEE-4C54-AB26-148A93A57C0F@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <0D67ABBC-1EEE-4C54-AB26-148A93A57C0F@steffann.nl>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:26:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CALx6S35r+h8Nj7w-oKfX3BMuQTSBdONwnFJGMmMvn86Y3fH9hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uk_gG7aoEXwyluI_mILDWpaztlk>
Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)
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: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 22:27:14 -0000

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:20 PM Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Ole,
>
> > Proposals are judged on their merits.
> > There is no protocol police.
>
> There is existing consensus, and changing that requires consensus on the changes. The onus is on those wanting the change, yet you demand the ones referring to the existing consensus to defend themselves. That is not their responsibility.
>
> > These proposals are not moving as far as I can see. So what are you trying to achieve by getting your collective knickers in a twist now?
>
> Seeing extremely bad precedent being set by a chair. Chairs have the responsibility to stand up for the consensus in their working group. Always. No matter their personal opinion. No matter who they work for. Always.
>
> The discussion has been had, consensus has been reached. Requiring someone else to defend an existing consensus is disrespectful to the working group that worked towards that consensus.
>
What consensus has been reached that you are referring to?

Tom

> Sander
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email