On 7/9/19 19:17, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > > * Spring chairs and AD were repeatedly flamed. They had to defend > [https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZFm_bQP1-C2f9xJuXtvEd9mLoxU] > * 6man AD/ chairs had to defend, > e.g., > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zfr-dCuSHSJRjE2NkJbfjuWoCi4. > * An atmosphere that the Spring and 6man are disconnected was created. > * Heated discussions (that are not on the table). > * Etc.
FWIW, I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Nobody was "flamed". You quote a message from Suresh, in which I asked how the IESG handles these things. I did make comments to Ole and Suresh, because they are co-chair and responsible AD for 6man, and I think their comments to disregard the statement in RFC8200 as if it wasn't the result of technical arguments is both wrong and unfair to the wg for which they are responsible. (Besides the fact that it represents *IETF* consensus). This was noted by others: * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9dfgDhjuMIvHfSAXg2bcFAa9q6s * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5KvaCMhsq819wcHxTkF7TpBdzLg * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/CTMqxFA2Goa6e4Fp5OFYJx92eHQ * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Rfd2RmNJ6Q1OikAJT5llf3BdSZg Given the past history with this topic (see: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/j1O11x4ICMUWGJmzlJfCx0y0-c8> and <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KGfHVQ6Hazb5NJkaGxG8WL3kYS0>), I think the above is not acceptable. And since they are in leadership positions, it's our responsibility to note these things when they happen. My question to the spring people obviously came from that background. I realize that the spring co-*chairs* might not be aware about the history of EH insertion within 6man. I do think that the RTG *ADs* should, since part of the discussion of EH insertion happened during IETC LC and IESG review of rfc2460bis. I'd note that, according to our charter: The 6man working group is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and advancement of the IPv6 protocol specifications and addressing architecture. It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications. Allowing EH insertion seems to me like a major change or addition to IPv6. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
