Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Peter van Dijk]

Hi Benno,

On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 23:48 +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> As a follow up to Shumon's email, the order is indeed different than 
> usual.  Normally we schedule current business first, but for 
> agenda-technical reasons (allowing discussion) we have changed the order.
> 
> Hope you understand the exception to the rule.

Right, that argument works both ways, of course.

Option 1: schedule the draft at the end and promise to get to it 10
minutes before the end - in other words, hope that you can manage to
cut the priority discussion short.

Option 2 (chosen here): get the draft out of the way first and hope
that we manage to limit discussion time on it, to leave time for the
wider WG discussion on priorities.

It is understood. Thank you.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Peter van Dijk]

Hello Shumon,

On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 14:49 -0400, Shumon Huque wrote:
> 
> I'm sure the chairs will answer you on process, but I wanted to state that I
> had actually posted -00 before the draft cutoff (-01 posted later was a minor
> tweak) and asked for agenda time then. The chairs apologized to me later 
> that they hadn't responded earlier and said they could fit me on Thursday.

Ah, apologies, then - I assumed it was post-cutoff because I did not notice any 
email about the draft on dnsop pre-cutoff.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Benno Overeinder]

As a follow up to Shumon's email, the order is indeed different than 
usual.  Normally we schedule current business first, but for 
agenda-technical reasons (allowing discussion) we have changed the order.


Hope you understand the exception to the rule.

Best,

-- Benno


On 29/07/2021 21:04, Shumon Huque wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Shumon Huque > wrote:


On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:41 PM Peter van Dijk
mailto:peter.van.d...@powerdns.com>>
wrote:


This is not a comment on the specific draft at all. This is a
comment
on WG process. It seems weird to me to discuss prioritisation
-after-
we spend time talking about current and, especially, new business.


I'm sure the chairs will answer you on process, but I wanted to
state that I
had actually posted -00 before the draft cutoff (-01 posted later
was a minor
tweak) and asked for agenda time then. The chairs apologized to me
later
that they hadn't responded earlier and said they could fit me on
Thursday.


Quick followup - I'm happy to go at the end. I'm not even sure I was 
going to

ask for adoption - this was more information sharing, and asking the WG what
I should do with this draft. So it need not impact the current work 
prioritization
discussion. (I am assuming the WG will not bless the BL method, so it is 
unlikely

to adopt it or a derivative, but I may be surprised).

Shumon.


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop



___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Shumon Huque]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Shumon Huque  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:41 PM Peter van Dijk <
> peter.van.d...@powerdns.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is not a comment on the specific draft at all. This is a comment
>> on WG process. It seems weird to me to discuss prioritisation -after-
>> we spend time talking about current and, especially, new business.
>>
>>
> I'm sure the chairs will answer you on process, but I wanted to state that
> I
> had actually posted -00 before the draft cutoff (-01 posted later was a
> minor
> tweak) and asked for agenda time then. The chairs apologized to me later
> that they hadn't responded earlier and said they could fit me on Thursday.
>

Quick followup - I'm happy to go at the end. I'm not even sure I was going
to
ask for adoption - this was more information sharing, and asking the WG what
I should do with this draft. So it need not impact the current work
prioritization
discussion. (I am assuming the WG will not bless the BL method, so it is
unlikely
to adopt it or a derivative, but I may be surprised).

Shumon.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Joe Abley]

Hi Peter,

On 29 Jul 2021, at 14:39, Peter van Dijk  wrote:

> On this version, I see under New Working Group Business a draft (the
> black lies sentinel) that was posted two days ago. Can somebody please
> explain to me what the purpose of the draft cutoff is, if drafts can
> appear in the datatracker, and on an agenda, after the cutoff?

I believe it has long been the case that the IETF resumes accepting new 
documents at the start of IETF week. This allows people to document ideas that 
come up in corridors and in the bar during the actual event.

(Remember actual events? In the Before Times, we had them.)

The purpose of the cut-off as I understand it is that agendas and meeting slots 
are supposed to be organised long in advance of that, and that it's useful to 
suspend new documents to avoid the rug being pulled out from that 
administrative process.

The case where a document is submitted before the deadline and gets agenda time 
but is updated before the meeting is not unremarkable either, I think, although 
I think references to the new version would properly be made informally and 
obviously not in the slides that were definitely submitted well in advance.

I can't speak to the black lies draft, for which I understand new terminology 
is eagerly anticipated before anybody else mentions it, but that's my general 
idea of what is going on in the world.

I miss actual events.


Joe

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Shumon Huque]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:41 PM Peter van Dijk 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 17:04 +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> > Dear WG,
> >
> > We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July.
> >   The updated agenda is uploaded to datatracker:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-06
>
> On this version, I see under New Working Group Business a draft (the
> black lies sentinel) that was posted two days ago. Can somebody please
> explain to me what the purpose of the draft cutoff is, if drafts can
> appear in the datatracker, and on an agenda, after the cutoff?
>
> In the latest version (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-07)
> , I see the new business has now been moved -in front- of both current
> business, and the discussion on prioritisation of WG activities.
>
> This is not a comment on the specific draft at all. This is a comment
> on WG process. It seems weird to me to discuss prioritisation -after-
> we spend time talking about current and, especially, new business.
>
>
I'm sure the chairs will answer you on process, but I wanted to state that I
had actually posted -00 before the draft cutoff (-01 posted later was a
minor
tweak) and asked for agenda time then. The chairs apologized to me later
that they hadn't responded earlier and said they could fit me on Thursday.

Shumon.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Peter van Dijk]

On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 17:04 +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Dear WG,
> 
> We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July. 
>   The updated agenda is uploaded to datatracker: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-06

On this version, I see under New Working Group Business a draft (the
black lies sentinel) that was posted two days ago. Can somebody please
explain to me what the purpose of the draft cutoff is, if drafts can
appear in the datatracker, and on an agenda, after the cutoff?

In the latest version (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-07)
, I see the new business has now been moved -in front- of both current
business, and the discussion on prioritisation of WG activities.

This is not a comment on the specific draft at all. This is a comment
on WG process. It seems weird to me to discuss prioritisation -after-
we spend time talking about current and, especially, new business.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Roy Arends]

Dear WG Chairs,

In light of the new agenda, I’d like to reserve time for a 15 minute 
presentation.

Warmly,

Roy

> On 28 Jul 2021, at 16:04, Benno Overeinder  wrote:
> 
> Dear WG,
> 
> We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July.  The 
> updated agenda is uploaded to datatracker: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-06
> 
> See you all on Thursday!
> 
> Suzanne
> Tim
> Benno
> 
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated

[Benno Overeinder]

Dear WG,

We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July. 
 The updated agenda is uploaded to datatracker: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-06


See you all on Thursday!

Suzanne
Tim
Benno

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop