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

["Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

In addition, there is a misunderstanding here.

 

The draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming LC is being handled by Martin Vigoureux, as stated by Martin in the following:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/w6VJzDYTVRFWOtvHuMso-kkiBXk/

 

Martin is neither a co-author nor a contributor to the draft.

 

Furthermore, since IETF106, Spring WG has only one active chair, as stated by Martin in the above email.

 

A copy of Martin’s email is cut-and-pasted for quicker reference:

 

----

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:55:24 -0000

WG,

 

Bruno has been managing SPRING alone since after IETF 106, because Rob

has been unable to act as chair. I have made several attempts to find a

solution and I now have serious hopes for the situation to return back

to normal soon.

 

Bruno being involved in the draft currently in WG LC, I will handle

closing it.

 

Martin

 

---

 

Thanks

 

Regards … Zafar

 

From: spring <spring-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 6:03 PM
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: SPRING WG <spring@xxxxxxxx>, IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

 

 

Exception ? As far as I see it this is rather a norm in multiple WGs across IETF for chair to co-author or contribute to his area of focus. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact it is expected for chair to read the draft  and comment othen resulting in becoming a contributor or at least being added to the Ack section. 

 

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/