Hi Brian,
Please see my previous response to your comments.
My argument is not legalistic. I am not as experience in IETF work as you and
Bob are. But what I understand is that the reason why we have these "legal"
process of charters and BoF is to enable a proper technical discussion with the
right context and details of the proposal presented for review of the
community.
I do not see how shortcutting them helps anyone and I wonder why it is being
done in this case?
Thanks,
Ketan
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
Sent: 22 May 2020 04:18
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; Ron Bonica
<rbon...@juniper.net>; Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com>; Zafar Ali (zali)
<z...@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man <6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH
On 22-May-20 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
...> It is the 6man charter that precludes it from defining a new Source
Routing solution..
> “It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6
> specifications.”
If this addition was major, that would be true. But adding a new RH type is
well within the scope of maintenance, IMHO. We have already done it quite
recently.
In any case, legalistic arguments about WG charters are really not how we
should take technical decisions.
Regards
Brian
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
