Enno,
That is how I parse Ole's message. But we can let Ole speak for himself.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Enno Rey <e...@ernw.de>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
Cc: otr...@employees.org; Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com>; 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)
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/i
> > pv
> > 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/ip
> > v6
> > /Db6_SGfmeIDzaE56Ps5kUDCYEzY__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QH6T9eu4QEGAh1tVtPAiXW2S
> > js 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> __;!8WoA6RjC81c!TjLEU67_JCgw5HSu4C7UhFOC61xLkOhpmW0Ev51wqvHbECMOysxK3t
> 9RS5pxqO3g$
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Enno Rey
Cell: +49 173 6745902
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
