Re: [dnsext] Design team report on dnssec-bis-updates and CD bit

["Jiankang YAO" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[e-mail]>
To: "Olafur Gudmundsson" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Design team report on dnssec-bis-updates and CD bit


> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:05:19AM -0400, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> On 09/07/2010 6:04 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> >On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 10:21:08AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> >>Dear colleagues,
>> >>
>> >>On 2010-07-06, there was a design team meeting in Bethesda, MD, to
>> >>address the issue of setting the CD bit in the dnssec-bis-updates
>> >>draft.  David Blacka, Olafur Gudmundsson, Mike StJohns, and Andrew
>> >>Sullivan attended.
>> >>
>> >>In the meeting, we concluded by describing three different models for
>> >>how the CD bit is to be treated and used by a validating resolver
>> >>(i.e. one that has at least one trust anchor), and what interaction
>> >>this has with a local cache.  We based these models on RFC 4035, on
>> >>the discussion we saw on the list on this topic, and on what we think
>> >>people have implemented.  We want one, and only one, of these models
>> >>to be described in the draft as the standard model.  These models are
>> >>outlined below.
>> >
>> >
>> > so the We in the para above is the design team of
>> > yourself, David, Olafur, and Mike.  This does not meet
>> > the WG criteria of "five" reviewers.
>> 
>> This is orthogonal, design team can be of any size, the output of an
>> design team can be one of:
>> a proposal of way forward
>> a list of options
>> a comment on a particular design.
>> a statement of failure to reach conclusion
> 
> hum... this kind of makes the IETF WG process subject to capture,
> don't you think?  According to you, a design team of one can make
> a statement about failure to reach conclusion...  Thats a pretty 
> low bar.
> 
> that being said, this work was the result of just four people.
> 

any proposal or conclusion or suggestion submitted by individual or 4-people group or design team must be discussed or approved by the WG.
without the WG approval, the design team report or conclusion will not be a wg conclusion.
This  Design team report is just a report, not a wg conclusion. so you don't worry "this kind of makes the IETF WG process subject to capture".
Since these four people sacrificed their own time to discuss the issue and produce a report, we should encourage them to do so.
If our WG discussion based on their report, our wg will move faster.
so I think that, we should thank these four people for their hard work.

Jiankang Yao