Re: [v6ops] IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/06/2014 12:27 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Although I appreciate that everyone thinks that "this can be
> coordinated", we're seeing ample evidence to the contrary. It's useful
> to note here that NEITHER DOC REFERENCES THE OTHER, despite being
> written by the same author (which begs the question of "end run").

Joe, if you feel like making an ad-hominem accusation, at the very least
state what the basis of your accusations are. This is not the first time
you do it. Last recent one was based on seconding Fred Baker's claim
that I had requested adoption of this document to two set of wg chairs
-- which was simply *not true*. Making such assertions in public, based
on your own personal assumption's (or someone else's) (and without
apologizing in those cases where it is easy to prove that something
wasn't true), does not seem like a good way forward or even fair.

That said, there are different sets of authors in each doc that you
mentioned. I happen to be a co-author of all such documents. But I'm not
"the author". If you think that one document should reference another,
but did not, maybe it was just an error? Maybe when writing the I-D, the
other document had not yet been written? Maybe something else other than
a conspiracy theory?

If you infer some sort of Machiavellian plan regarding this document, I
just say "there isn't any". If you wonder, this is how each I-D was born:

the eh-filtering I-D is simply an IPv6 version of RFC7126. We got
RFC7126 done, and the IPv6 part was missing. That's how this I-D was born.

OTOH, draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world was born (later) when
trying to codify and summarize what we had been discussing at the IEPG
meetings (for more than a year now).



> If this is left to the WGs, then the WGs need to decide if they can
> manage each of these documents in the isolation the context that already
> has been allowed to exist and is already promoted by the author - or if
> that can *only* happen in a single doc.

As noted quite a few times, there have been many cases where there's has
been overlap among wg groups. For instance, anything that has to do with
ipv6 opsec can fit either v6ops or opsec. I personally don't see that as
a problem.

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