Ole - so - let me understand something.
The definition of consensus - among other things - say that all outstanding
objections have been addressed (though not potentially resolved). When you
have multiple people saying - a draft violates RFC8200 and that is a concern -
and if such a thing is required, an update to RFC8200 should be done. Multiple
concerns have been raised - a number of which have not been addressed to the
satisfaction of those asking the questions.
Yet - we now see documents being pushed through to last call without these
things being addressed. So I would ask - what exactly do you, as a working
group chair propose we do - swallow our technical concerns and our objections
and because we've said it once, and it's been ignored or swept under the rug,
shrug our shoulders and say - oh well - that’s ok - we tried - and let
something we believe to be technically flawed sail through?
I stood and very clearly stated multiple times that I believe that work on this
stuff and the drafts which I am co-author on should continue in parallel -
because for one - I believe in some ways - they address different things - yet
- at the same time - that does not mean that I believe that we should accept
things which we have deep technical concerns about.
The engineering must come first - and it seems very clear to me that both
myself and others - have significant technical and operational concerns - and I
find it rather bizarre that you seem to imply that once these concerns are
stated once - we should swallow it and accept a situation where these are not
addressed and documents are shoved through to last call in the face of serious
technical objection.
So - please - clarify for me - are you asking us to swallow our objections and
just accept something that violates another rfc for which there is consensus
just because we asked once, and the issue wasn't addressed - so that makes it
somehow disappear? Or what exactly are you expecting of us?
Andrew
On 07/12/2019, 01:02, "Ole Troan" <otr...@employees.org> wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2019, at 22:09, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is much room for interpretation here, but anyway I
> should ask: are you suggesting that I have attacked or been attacking
> the process?
I would rather say taking advantage of the process.
By reiterating the same assertive arguments again and again you contribute
to polarization. Your strategy for consensus building seems to be one of
attrition.
If you want to help make the process work, I would encourage you to
reconsider that approach.
Ole
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
