If this saga continues any further I recommend we start first by obsoleting RFC8200 too. After all it's main author Bob Hinden was also a 6man chair who requested publication of 2460bis:
2016-12-02 2016-12-02 17:06:39 -0800 | 08 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-12-02 | 08 | Bob Hinden | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-12-02 | 08 | Bob Hinden | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-11-30 | 08 | Bob Hinden | Changed document writeup |
2016-11-15 | 08 | Bob Hinden | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08.txt |
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 9:38 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/
