> * polling the mailing list instead of deciding (on your own) that the > group wants to work on EH insertion, and,
Which decision are you referring to? I have certainly never decided that working group wants to work on header insertion. With regards to the documents, I believe I clarified the statement of the working group seeing no reason why both documents couldn't be continue to be worked on. Those documents are not adopted, nor has any decision about adoption been made, nor is any adoption call of those documents planned. I certainly don't want us as a group or myself personally to be working on header insertion. You might not be alone, but you certainly keep repeatedly forcing the working group to consider the issue. > * complying with existing specifications unless there's formal consensus > for them to be formally updated. I believe I have responded multiple times to this point. I do not in principle see a conflict with specifying how header insertion can work in a specific case, and the text in RFC8200. I would strongly oppose updating RFC8200, since header insertion is clearly something that can only apply in specific use cases. > As a 6man chair, I would expect that you would be doing exactly that > yourself, as opposed to essentially suggesting the group is going to > work on a document without polling the wg for adoption (particularly > when the topic has been, at best, controversial), or encourage other > groups to violate the same specs that this same wg produced. I try to do the best job I can, and be fair, neutral, open and transparent. That job is clearly not easy when this particular debate is as disruptive as it is. You at least always have RFC2026, section 6.5. Best regards, Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
