IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 18 June 2021 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 BC3B93A12C5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vtvN7VIKrwfB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 AB0CD3A12C1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 15IMWKuD032319 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:32:20 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.12; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:32:19 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.012; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:32:19 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] IETF meeting prep and what
Thread-Index: AQHXZJHMa2iATI7aQ0i7qD14Jo080w==
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:32:19 +0000
Message-ID: <9E1B73F0-D1AA-4510-978E-34A75524CD0C@icann.org>
References: <CADyWQ+ESB-W9DvdRjCrdXgaZUWzX5b5cUvu-Ue3zjRrVsnCB2w@mail.gmail.com> <5a9b35c5806e36b0802be493d87beb8ef2fef18d.camel@powerdns.com> <ybltulu98e6.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <ybltulu98e6.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EA635C2E-4F02-443B-8BA9-FD680464AC70"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-06-18_11:2021-06-18, 2021-06-18 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LeHf_g2NtZPt2vT9xGDn3Gcx3XM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] IETF meeting prep and what
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: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:32:32 -0000

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.

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email