[lacnog] Vendors e IETF, vol 2 (Fwd: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping))

[Fernando Gont]

FYI.

Esto esta pasando en 6man, el grupo que estandariza IPv6. El tema que se
está discutiendo tiene como principal propulsor a Cisco. Y el co-chair
de 6man tambien es de Csico.

En estas latitudes, cada vez que he mencionado las cosas que acontecen,
se las relativiza, o se las ignora.

Sin embargo, es imposible esperar que la región incremente sus
contribuciones a IETF de forma efectiva, si estas cosas no se combaten.
Ya quien participa lo termina haciendo en inferioridad de condiciones.

Pueden también leer este mensaje, que resume bastante bien el tema:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/h8HeFiEE7QMN32p0OoF3dMUdbOk

O este:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Azz4JAC_j4Qf5RNHpuNCjnZ6daA

Otro participante llegó, por separado, a esta misma conclusión:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SvLBLKpsTGkiBvMa6VgwYCAH8Cw

Tal vez ahora, con algo mas de contexto, se entienda mejor esto que
escribí por acá hace unos meses:
https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/ietf-lac/2019-August/001434.html


Sander es Europeo, Andre vive en Africa. Tom creo que USA. Faltan los
latinos.... así como todos aquellos que creen que callarse cuando hay
algo que está mal impide que la humanidad avance. :-)



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re:
Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 22:23:34 +0000
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston en liquidtelecom.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan en employees.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont en si6networks.com>
CC: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net en dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG
<spring en ietf.org>, 6man <6man en ietf.org>, int-ads en ietf.org
<int-ads en ietf.org>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads en ietf.org>, Bob Hinden
<bob.hinden en gmail.com>

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" <otroan en employees.org> wrote:

            > On 6 Dec 2019, at 22:09, Fernando Gont
<fgont en 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 en ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------