On 4/9/19 05:23, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
>
>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Fernando Gont <ferna...@gont.com.ar>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello, Suresh,
>>
>> On 2/9/19 19:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: [....]
[....]
>>
>> Since there have been plenty of attempts to do EH insertion or
>> leave the IPv6 standard ambiguous in this respect, and the IETF has
>> had consensus that EH insertion is not allowed, I think it would be
>> bad, wastefull, tricky, and even dangerous to let a document go
>> through the whole publication process, and just rely on the AD to
>> keep the "DISCUSS" button pressed.
>>
>> Put another way: what'd be the rationale for having a draft-ietf
>> and have the corresponding wg ship the document with something that
>> clearly goes against IETF consensus, and that the relevant AD has
>> declared that wouldn't let pass?
>
> In short, this is not the case. I am *not* the relevant AD for the
> SRv6 Network Programming draft. If this document was in 6man I would
> have flagged it much earlier like I did for the SRH draft.
Sorry, what I meant by "relevant AD" is: "one of the responsible ADs for
the spec that's being violated".
i.e., isn't there in the IETF process -- whether formal or informal --
for this sort of thing to be flagged before documents get too far in the
publication process? ("Hey, this document in your area is actually
breaking a spec of one of my wgs" sort of thing...)
Thanks!
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
