With my Ombudsperson-hat firmly on my head:
If you do wish to make a report to the Ombudsteam, please do that in private email; Cc'ing a bunch of mailing lists is an inappropriate venue for such a report.
That said, it's not clear that this falls under our purview. From the Introduction to RFC 7776:
The IETF has general policies for managing disruptive behavior in the
context of IETF activities. In particular, [RFC7154] provides a set
of guidelines for personal interaction in the IETF, and [RFC2418] and
[RFC3934] give guidelines for how to deal with disruptive behavior
that occurs in the context of IETF working group face-to-face
meetings and on mailing lists.
However, there is other problematic behavior that may be more
personal and that can occur in the context of IETF activities
(meetings, mailing list discussions, or social events) that does not
directly disrupt working group progress but nonetheless is
unacceptable behavior between IETF Participants. This sort of
behavior, described in the IESG Statement "IETF Anti-Harassment
Policy" [Policy], is not easily dealt with by our previously existing
working group guidelines and procedures. Therefore, this document
sets forth procedures to deal with such harassing behavior.
These procedures are intended to be used when other IETF policies and
procedures do not apply or have been ineffective.
Since this is all taking place on public lists, and at least at first glance does not appear to be the kind of "more personal" behavior that RFC 7776 is talking about, it seems like going to the appropriate AD, or WG chair, or IETF list sergeant-at-arms, would be the more obvious first step. But again, first glances are not always accurate, so if you (or anyone) feels that particular behavior has crossed the line into the inter-personal sort (as against simply disruptive), please do not hesitate to drop an email to the Ombudsteam; we're more than happy to discuss it and help resolve it, privately.
pr
On 6 Dec 2018, at 23:27, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:11 AM Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:31 AM Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Additionally, packets don’t emerge from different mole endpoints or are IP processed in any way. The mold acts like a wire, which is fine. That can be done by IP tunnels too. But not routers that converge and diverge packets.That got mangled by autocorrect. Packets aren’t supposed to be IP processed by links. To the extent that MPLS does this, it is broken vs the Internet arch. Remember that MPLS tries to emulate a router path that can’t keep up. It can - and does - fail to do so correctly in some cases.Joe, frankly I'm pretty sad that your behavior here is such as this.I would like the IETF Ombudsteam to have a chat with you are your behavior and your lack of listening to reasoned input from folk who both implement and operate networks, equipment and the protocols which make up the Internet at large. You are not helping your case nor the case of the protocols in question.If the ombudsteam are unable/unwilling to interact here I'd like the responsible ADs for ops/tsv to have a chat with you about this.Again, if HBH headers are meaningless and not needed, then go through the proper process and remove them from IPv6. If not, stop trying to hobble this protocol to the point where we all realize why nobody wants to use it.I think everyone here is actually happy to see v6 progress.As am I - in Standards. It shouldn’t ‘progress’ on ops.note I'm not trying to be intentionally combative, just attempting to say: "the best answer for the user here is PROBABLY to just have the core ignore all the EH business entirely"Again, if they’re not needed, fine. Remove them in Standards.However, if the role of ops is to decide what standards to ignore, then perhaps the IESG should reconsider the area’s charter.Joe
