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

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 1:41 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM), and
> > you never responded.
>
> Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be?
>
> > Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here:
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY
> >
> > 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".
>
Ole,

I'm not sure what the outcome to the working group session means in
terms of the process. Basically, we have two documents that almost
directly contradict each other (the EH insertion is bad one was in
fact written in response to the EH insertion is good document). They
both can't be right, and Network programming is still assuming the
outcome that EH insertion/intermediate node removal is correct. So to
continue to work on both documents seems to be akin to punting the
disagreement without clarity on how this will ever be resolved. Also,
I'd point out that the EH insertion document is over a year old and
has already been reviewed, I don't see what new information could be
provided at this point that would change the fundamental arguments
against it.

Can we ask for call for working group adoption call on these?

Tom



> > 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
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------