Hi Fernando,
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 10:50 PM, Fernando Gont <ferna...@gont.com.ar> wrote:
>
> 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…)
Nothing official. This is one of the main reasons that we have IESG evaluation
(to find any cross area issues). That said, nothing stops an AD from doing this
as a WG participant in the other area, but the real question is whether the
issue still exists when the document hits the IESG.
Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
