On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:07 AM <bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: > > Sander, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sander Steffann [mailto:san...@steffann.nl] > > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:03 PM > > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN > > Cc: SPRING WG List; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming; 6man WG > > Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > > >> Wait, what?! There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the > > >> IETF or any other consensus based forum... > > > > > > By advance this document, I meant start the WG LC. Which is about > > > collecting comments on the document. > > > > I think you are confused. This document has been in WG LC since December… I > > think many of us read "advance this document" as "declare consensus on WG > > LC". > > Re-reading my sentence, I agree that it may be misinterpreted. Let me try to > rephrase: > In December, I have started the WGLC because this has been asked by the > authors of this WG document. And because this is usually a good way to > trigger a review of the whole document by many persons, and hence improve the > document. > (And I do think that the document has improved as a result of starting the > WGLC) > > > > > The situation is that there was and is a single chair. I'm personally ok > > > to not proceed with any adoption call or last call while there is no > > > other co-chair. Note that my AD never asked for this. > > > > I'm glad you confirm that no consensus has been declared. That seems the > > appropriate state at the moment. > > > > >> Based on the discussions on the mailing list (including questions on why > > >> PSP is so important that we can't take it out for now which have never > > >> been clearly answered by the authors) I can't see you can possibly > > >> declare consensus. > > >> > > >> If there is going to be an appeal I will certainly put my signature on > > >> it. > > > > > > This is you right to appeal to the IESG. > > > > Now that we know that consensus hasn't been declared and the document is > > still in LC I think appealing would be premature :) > > > > > Note that appealing to the IESG is exactly what I'm proposing to do with > > > regards to the reading of RFC 8200. > > > > Getting that feedback would indeed be helpful. > > Good. > How do you propose that we get an evaluation and formal answer from the IESG > on this point? > My proposal is to ask while asking the IESG review on > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
<no-hats> Ok, I'm confused -- the process goes that (for WG documents) the WG chairs evaluate and declare consensus, and then send the document to the responsible AD. The responsible AD reviews the document and the process, and if they deem it appropriate, sends to to the IESG for evaluation. "ask while asking the IESG review on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming" implies that the chairs would have declared consensus and believe it is ready to publish, and that the responsible AD agrees it is ready to progress - is this what you are proposing / saying? Or were you meaning that you would just ask the IESG to review? Or that you would state that you cannot declare consensus, and are gridlocked, and ask the IESG to help? Or something else? I'm genuinely confused what you mean by the above, and am just trying to figure out what you are proposing. W </no-hats> > > --Bruno > > > Cheers! > > Sander > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
