Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] IETF meeting prep and what

On 6/18/2021 6:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2021, at 2:21 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
>> Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> writes:
>>
>>> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations
>> I keep meaning to republish it with Olafur's suggested reduced title
>> (since it's really describing just one problem).  But it's unlikely to
>> get published as an RFC due to lack of consensus after a long drawn out
>> conversation where most of the WG stopped reading due to the harsh
>> language of some messages.
> For those who don't remember, the lack of consensus was based on too few people speaking to support the document after one WG member kept harshly objecting to some of the wording. This happened well WG Last Call was finished. The chairs decided to kill the document rather than deal decisively with the one obstructionist WG participant.

The document failed of WG consensus twice - including the last time 
around.   Blaming that on me seems to be rewriting history and somewhat 
of a personal attack.   And actually seems a bit out of character for you.

Given the amount of work I did on the document and the amount of text 
that Wes thought was useful that did get incorporated, calling me an 
obstructionist has me quoting the Princess Bride ... you know the 
quote.   For your edification, obstructionism is interfering or impeding 
with the business for the sole purpose of delaying the process. While 
you may have that opinion, it is not supported by the factual record and 
is again somewhat of a personal attack.

This document was never effectively a WG edited document - even after 
adoption, Wes kept the editing pen and accepted or rejected text based 
on his sole judgement.   That's not necessarily a bad thing for a given 
document, but it can make it difficult to gain consensus.  Besides a few 
other comments, this was a mostly a dialog between me and him on the 
validity of the math.   AFAICT, no third party spent the time to do any 
analysis of Wes' work, nor to disprove my analysis leaving some of my 
concerns unresolved and a document with less than useful and at times 
confusing results.     E.g. see 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7or09HOoMjcJdWD576OahbOyHP8/ 
and 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1nUrmIWSoD_UA6lYxjHskEr60uo/ 
and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JEPKl_3A5azV_l_UYKTtXGb8QtU/

At the end, I objected to the publication of this in the standards 
track, and to inaccuracies in the document shepherd summary along with 
the fact that no new WG last call had actually happened prior to the 
request for publication.   The WG chair pulled it back from publication 
requested, the authors fixed the intended status and published -13, and 
the document was placed for last call looking for support.  It got none, 
and was eventually marked by the WG chairs as dead when it expired.  
Note that I placed no objections during the final last call and not a 
single person - including you Paul - voiced support.

If you want to resurrect it, maybe grab a new editor and put Wes and me 
on a more even playing field for determining the final text.  Otherwise 
Requiescat in Pace for the document.

Later, Mike

>
>> It can probably be dropped from the active
>> list because of this.
> I would like to see the document, which we all already agreed on, moved to IETF Last Call instead.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop