Hi, Gunter: Thanks for your suggestions! Sure, I will prepare the technical analysis and appeal for this document after its WGLC.
In current version, as I stated before, it will lead chaos within the operator network. I have also provided my concerns on the unsolved issues, but the authors shunned to reply and focused again and again some word gaming of the ambiguous points. We are also preparing our proposal to solve the aimed problem, wish my objections here doesn’t lead to the non technical reason to block its adoption and forwarding in LSR WG. If some of my words in previous mail offended the WG chairs, i apologize for my negligence. But the technical appeal will be undergone if there is no more change or updates for the WGLC document. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Sep 4, 2024, at 17:51, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Aijun, > > As the responsible Routing Area Director, it is unacceptable to permit any > form of personal attack or character assault against a Working Group (WG) > chair or any other WG participant. If there are concerns regarding the > behavior of fellow WG members, I encourage you to bring these issues to my > attention, and I will work with you to address them appropriately. > > For guidance on the IETF consensus process, please refer to RFC 7282, "On > Consensus and Humming in the IETF." This document outlines the principles for > achieving rough consensus and provides a clear path for an objector to appeal > decisions. > > Specifically, Section 3, "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are > addressed, but not necessarily accommodated," includes the following relevant > passage: > > “Remember, if the objector feels that the issue is so essential that it must > be attended to, they always have the option to file an appeal. A technical > error is always a valid basis for an appeal. The chair, in making the > consensus call (or whoever is responsible to hear an appeal), may determine > that the issue was addressed and understood, but they also have the freedom > and the responsibility to say, 'The group did not take this technical issue > into proper account' when appropriate. Simply having a large majority of > people agreeing to dismiss an objection is not enough to claim there is rough > consensus; the group must have honestly considered the objection and > evaluated whether other issues weighed sufficiently against it. Failure to do > so means that there is no true consensus." > > Kind regards, > G/ > Routing Area Director > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 5:47 AM > To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> > Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Yingzhen > Qu <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs <[email protected]>; lsr > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Lsr] Re: 【Please Abandon this WGLC document】答复: Re: WG Last Call > for draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv (7/1/2024 - 7/15/2024) > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > information. > > > >> On Sep 2, 2024, at 23:37, Aijun _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
