Re: [DNSOP] Meeting agenda

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello, AD here.
> 
> On 10/28/15 5:24 AM, yaojk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 在 2015年10月28日，19:45，Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]> 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
> 
>