RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Andrew,

[Cc to ietf@]

I'll disclose that I am also affiliated with a RIR. I am copying this message to the Responsible Area Director [1] for the SPRING Working Group.

At 01:17 AM 01-03-2020, Andrew Alston wrote:
While some on this list have made references to Bruno?s integrity ? let me start by saying ? I make no comment on anyone?s integrity ? because I don?t know Mr. Decraene well enough to comment on that, and because I find an individual?s integrity in a discussion about if a potential conflict exists to be irrelevant. When people recuse for conflict in any normal environment, it is not because they will act on the conflict necessarily, it is because of perception, because it can taint the issue under discussion, and it leaves the process open to both attack and appeal.

My question was about the process and the role with respect to draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Decraene to comment about his integrity. It has been pointed out to me that the person is well-known. I don't see what that has to do with the question which I asked.

There is a message at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3zbi71sjcJ8KaFgVIrF2Ymx4GC8/ which lists the Responsible Area Director as a Contributor. In my opinion, the procedural aspects are problematic. I commented about a somewhat similar topic previously [2]. From what I understand, RFC 2026 is applicable for all documents coming out of the IETF Stream. According to that RFC, the "procedures are explicitly aimed at recognizing and adopting generally-accepted practices". One of the definitions in RFC 7776 is: "A conflict of interest may arise if someone involved in the process of handling a harassment report is in the role of Reporter, Respondent, or Subject. Furthermore, a conflict of interest arises if the person involved in the process of handling a harassment report is closely associated personally or through affiliation with any of the Reporter, Respondent, or Subject". The general practice, in such a situation, is recusal. I'll invite the Responsible Area Director to comment about whether there should be an exception to that practice and the rationale for it.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/about/
2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xBjDAIM4hdnSTyxL7QHlbiFX3eE/




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux