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

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Thu, 29 July 2021 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F307B3A0A01 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIqRzNeBxGes for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [116.202.126.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D6463A0A1C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CF71A1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:48:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.138]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1627595287; bh=7lLpPy7WDFFCI9ATZmKNv6ztRv9sO1oKHbuKQtSPwoo=; h=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=tOIkezj73+fejA53yBVYha4gzDCcNOfwiF2YSecEwQIFR9mkRcT7rOQva6AVJYp/+ Ict/HGKpWWqrDfGiriQp8Egdmf20Yol7tWrmj1auOELuJgbw3TG2o519yO+Tf0ekEw AZ5YX2CUkIftC3J537Zv/eZ8Tsu8R/1vIET4kw/C0ykHcKnvj7PBEqMJ/KEdC+7vgO ftt45xL/gnltNUHJFwZ6D4QfxfDiHWP1RddpKEgBLn+yZ77eIPk9ZINus7/H4xwywi 6O3kitZ+RXHRbiTq3zRw7E/agJWPaq8O38z8NN2Zfhk9f9jI1gblsu84zYok5BHS1D 9PMDhqYT26Q6g==
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <0000061c-6125-3abf-4338-3163532624b0@NLnetLabs.nl> <b9af7b62d0fd1697eb8988d4edc5ef7284e28957.camel@powerdns.com> <CAHPuVdVujTY-4cKA3dc=b3TBprs6+w4hfcQUUwbB5eORcm6KKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdUdU54f7nKjPdAGRo_XE9K6Cu7iUAjhbLHLWz+eVAbDsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Message-ID: <651ea536-3302-14f0-acd4-759a8d535d16@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:48:04 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdUdU54f7nKjPdAGRo_XE9K6Cu7iUAjhbLHLWz+eVAbDsw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BsvxmUlt7kTh76Hswj9JvV0avBk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IETF 111 DNSOP WG session II agenda updated
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:48:21 -0000

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