Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda

Tim WIcinski <> Thu, 29 October 2015 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15F61A00AE; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cv4ZGAF0ii1G; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BD171A004E; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgad10 with SMTP id d10so32466596qga.3; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GhhT6D8NfdTpm+hVz1RB2YF9SP6pmip2yD4/EH0A3z8=; b=Hin2htofWDLmu7htxZ1S4IXFWHUIj1vvGz2RqDuSW3cfIMNIEktw3YNksI3kbONRRs zr66ch5tB2QgjTWBX9HEKY+BiJ1G77r99UJACtRBL1/dd8ORkdY/eyxI0dOKmtk/cCx6 JIq/EMvnobEovqS2jF8yAx2AVZK3FHmm2T/Q3TgOW541CJx1jVzDZNWyyERMPY5wA87d 5AzhOosnpCMhf37uFVZ9u7PuJiOjFPtq4bAJk+qylSOf1/1+q0rvr+u0BU6ycYG/4LQe MlXK97B9ZYPrhpZs7wwcZAChLNuEMZdsHnTVfTQ3cA9hm8DmB2mzFHGkKGBCoWHYUYik Q/kg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 66mr1966664qht.12.1446122264707; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from feather.local ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 79sm473889qkv.23.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Oct 2015 05:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Suzanne Woolf <>, joel jaeggli <>
References: <SNT407-EAS358C1970FD337AB12A4E9A3B74E0@phx.gbl> <SNT407-EAS236960872DAC35D4C1D4EEAB74A0@phx.gbl> <> <SNT407-EAS224EA7923DAA4DE2EB5DECBB7270@phx.gbl> <SNT407-EAS279DCE97242311D3AF1BA29B7210@phx.gbl> <> <SNT407-EAS402B99E97DD7C392AF65A3B7210@phx.gbl> <> <>
From: Tim WIcinski <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:37:29 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/42.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>, "" <>, yaojk <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:37:47 -0000

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.


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 <> wrote:
>> Hello, AD here.
>> On 10/28/15 5:24 AM, yaojk wrote:
>>>> 在 2015年10月28日,19:45,Tim Wicinski <> 写道:
>>>>> On 10/28/15 7:37 AM, yaojk wrote:
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>  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.
>>>> 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