Thanks All,
What I do want to say if the authors will be in Yokohama, I will gladly
sit down with them and work through the issues raised here. My personal
opinion is I do want new voices and ideas to be heard, and I feel it's
one of my roles as co-chair to offer assistance to folks attempting to
navigate the consensus process.
tim
On 10/29/15 11:04 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
Thanks, Joel.
As Joel points out for those who may not know-- the decision not to add this
draft to the agenda for the f2f meeting next week is within the discretion of
the WG chairs. However, in the interests of transparency, we have no problem
explaining the decision.
THe draft draft-yao-dnsop-root-cache was already "introduced," with the draft
announcement forwarded to the mailing list, on 29 September. There was some discussion of
it around that time. The author admitted that it was intended to solve the same problem
as draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback, a WG draft which had already been through Last Call,
with WG consensus to advance it for publication. There were a few comments on draft-yao,
asking for clarification as to how the approach described might be an improvement on
root-loopback. The response did not seem to be persuading anyone that the new approach
offered any new advantage.
In short, the initial comments on the draft did not suggest support for it in
the WG. We see no reason to believe that assessment would change if it were
re-introduced in the f2f meeting.
As already noted, this does not block discussion on the draft.
best,
Suzanne & Tim
On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:09 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote:
Hello, AD here.
On 10/28/15 5:24 AM, yaojk wrote:
在 2015年10月28日，19:45，Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> 写道：
On 10/28/15 7:37 AM, yaojk wrote:
Hello
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/agenda?item=agenda-94-dnsop.html
From the agenda above, I see that it doesn't include my draft
discussion. Could you kindly assignee 5 minutes to introduce the draft-
yao-dnsop-root-cache？
Thanks
Jiankang Yao
Hi
Thanks for asking, but we're not going to give time to this draft.
It might be your power as chairman. But I think that your arguments to block
the draft discussion is not reasonable.
We invest chairs with editorial discretion among other things. that is
of course backstopped with an appeals process but for now somebody has
to manage the facility.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-6.1
The consensus of comments about the draft is that it has many issues that need
to be addressed.
Unfortunately, I haven't such senses of your called consensus.
I'm not going to challenge that assertion... For myself; Joe Abley's
message on 9/30 is the last cogent message related to the discussion of
this draft that's on record. to date (until now) I don't see further
activity on it.
On 9/30/15 6:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
...
I think I would need to see a convincing problem statement and
understand how this proposal provided effective solutions before I
could support it.
There doesn't really seem to be much point (imho) in taking the
discussion off the mailing list in order to utilize expensive high
bandwith discussion time since it just trailed off a month ago, that
said, that's not up to me.
thanks
joel
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
