Hi Ron, On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote: > Peace Gentlemen, > > For the purpose of this thread, I think that we have all of the information > that we need. Consensus regarding header insertion and removal is "evolving".
not meaning to nitpick and admittedly I'm not super-familiar with all nuances of IETF processes but this means that no type of consensus has been reached yet, correct? thanks Enno > > We need to let that evolution progress, and not make any assumptions > regarding its outcome. > > Ron > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > -----Original Message----- > From: otr...@employees.org <otr...@employees.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 4:42 PM > To: Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> > Cc: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man > <6...@ietf.org>; int-...@ietf.org; rtg-ads <rtg-...@tools.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network > Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping) > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv > > 6/12Qwp_eeQT2EmbUrSxBLL5HTcnM__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2SjsZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4TwztzwnbH$ > > ), and you never responded. > > Sorry, which decision is that supposed to be? > > > Suresh (INT AD) clarified this one list, here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6 > > /Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2Sjs > > ZMxfQdUYen3nv2CPDS4DWlFeKu7c4Tw1iPjJAl$ > > > > 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". > > > 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 > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Enno Rey Cell: +49 173 6745902 Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring