Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 28 October 2015 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01881ACD52; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 wuL2hNo8QCTN; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 756C51ACD53; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb.local ([IPv6:2601:647:4204:51:d575:4905:99f3:88d]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t9SJ9JiB039768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:09:20 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: yaojk <jiankangyao@hotmail.com>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <SNT407-EAS358C1970FD337AB12A4E9A3B74E0@phx.gbl> <SNT407-EAS236960872DAC35D4C1D4EEAB74A0@phx.gbl> <8D29DE86-A6D3-4287-9187-5724A6E70B6F@gmail.com> <SNT407-EAS224EA7923DAA4DE2EB5DECBB7270@phx.gbl> <SNT407-EAS279DCE97242311D3AF1BA29B7210@phx.gbl> <5630B572.9010402@gmail.com> <SNT407-EAS402B99E97DD7C392AF65A3B7210@phx.gbl>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56311D5E.1070101@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:09:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/42.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SNT407-EAS402B99E97DD7C392AF65A3B7210@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sA6gKawFb6GKrdxtAXXCGmUBqjGiI5VEV"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/J0y40JVb-Qs06VfD0hgCt2a2VqM>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "dnsop-chairs@ietf.org" <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:09:26 -0000

Hello, AD here.

On 10/28/15 5:24 AM, yaojk wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 在 2015年10月28日,19:45,Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> 写道:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/28/15 7:37 AM, yaojk wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/agenda?item=agenda-94-dnsop.html
>>>
>>> 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.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-6.1

>> 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