Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Thu, 07 July 2022 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <msj@nthpermutation.com>
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 8DFC4C13C532 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 13:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nthpermutation-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hyZW2erpVwMj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 13:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1885C13C528 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 13:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id l14so24456279qtx.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 13:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nthpermutation-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B84Ag7r1xvVGqYToqY39aa0AKcKyTOODJW+1hse64a4=; b=cmOoVVYpaqmOJJnq+hDr/GYM42sJ1rX8MXTUe0qB+xHEd0QbUPLQ2YWpla2P1tX7PB nCXXqWh/oVoYcgxekN8tDCoSekcS4KI20Jp84cz0z4jI2phKzXmLNgKKbI/cn7LjpA7+ 9iWtvi40PeMm+IYVnFCbM+KU6VJ2/lHnzyeHUH8z13g7wSk7zct82qssRsHdqODjRvkI QJT6cJx+f2w4xj4LIliKY973o/8BUxC4ib1Pk0PNHc6AHf/t93Bh9bdRHBwUIWQJmtqG A2GE/N1D0oQjc8O90gtP8mG0L37OMmbjoFOivL/SObPFjFgHr/Q0FaF2ka+Jg7iG31lO u11Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=B84Ag7r1xvVGqYToqY39aa0AKcKyTOODJW+1hse64a4=; b=I8aCqJ3TiOz7p7e6G0wPE4gGVZTfOO0t/fWhdXEEPW6aveev1sSLby7SodJ5B3RIhZ Z3wHgZ5asli+pEzIo/TJz8PJKVUIE9k5f2hBjXys7roZ3PrTEJCWzG7xh/lHEgJoY68M bzhGNq6TkTVFEzRo1olHjLVYjsrEAZnVqjpFVHYgWAWPOi3EaXjFhBcd3wHZybPcrGot CjySJKH13sTNL2bYLxzePoolYl7XQ71GVoVIINHxdwYJXKUs3eUt/6PBovbBhtxNEcnd l2ELytgfYhrjIjQFKZMn+w+n1O7AstX5YXfJZ+pcZkjewUpGZHhVZJPN8EBQICky/N53 FmlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+NJfMh5RbcP0GAREnm0jpjynEJ+ECGtUWH5egBc4La2hwqTdfx Wf67rw/v+wcze8TfX4Gh7aGPBGqNrv+V5VMI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ttqyz9jQVs6KOL2Ii1NA2o4ZNupbsjAuGgoeIXSzj3+Sq7nQiCSGj0KoGSCuxJeQL8Dn5iaQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5fc3:0:b0:31d:2637:7ed6 with SMTP id k3-20020ac85fc3000000b0031d26377ed6mr37244322qta.282.1657225103819; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 13:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.23] (pool-108-51-33-15.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.51.33.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u4-20020a05620a430400b006a6d7c3a82esm33151896qko.15.2022.07.07.13.18.23 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2022 13:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d3d7da2b-74ba-7b6f-7fb1-f1d4f4b9b6f0@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:18:22 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+FGSdnW8NbBT72vGzNL9Bdr5DrM357K4X+iAkhS+aZs0A@mail.gmail.com> <3b8026db-74a6-ff96-8329-07a16087c46d@NLnetLabs.nl> <86C99A90-E74D-4E76-9A56-D7EB5EB54093@icann.org> <15bbb88a-017a-bde9-7622-5996e2335e9e@NLnetLabs.nl> <e702dda0-4395-7555-8678-d513c9bcfef8@nthpermutation.com> <96262aca-32ce-322e-bba0-389e0dd15c7f@NLnetLabs.nl> <91fc4e2d-32be-2d7c-a9a0-b25d3286ff9a@nthpermutation.com> <4746ec15-b459-21eb-1908-01b45d2e3940@NLnetLabs.nl>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
In-Reply-To: <4746ec15-b459-21eb-1908-01b45d2e3940@NLnetLabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/OBVLkRVy8I_676ovo-WDQcPyTmc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSOP Document Adoption Poll (June 2022)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 07 Jul 2022 20:18:47 -0000

Hi Benno -

On 7/7/2022 3:12 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 07/07/2022 20:26, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 7/7/2022 12:28 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>>> Conducting a survey (2 times now) has worked well over the past 1.5 
>>> years to prioritise finishing existing work and starting new work. 
>>> Two years ago we (as a WG) discussed how to manage the workload of 
>>> the WG and running a poll seemed to be one of the mechanisms to help 
>>> with that.
>>
>> Using the search terms "poll" and "survey" individually via the DNSOP 
>> archive web page, I found the last July email 
>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bXDwmPhft5BXFndKs5xI3FjOewE/) 
>> which was about prioritization and a bunch of doodle polls about 
>> interim WG scheduling.  I didn't find any about new work.  For the 
>> prioritization google thing, I can't actually read the text of the 
>> google doc via that link, and I'm not sure what to search for in the 
>> mail archive to find the resultant document if indeed it was 
>> published to the list.  Searching the archives is *very* clumsy. So, 
>> depending only on my memory, I seem to remember that other poll was 
>> only about dealing with accepted work that hadn't progressed (i.e., 
>> kill or keep).   Scanning forward from the publication date of that 
>> poll, I can't see anyplace where the result of that poll was actually 
>> published to the list.  The chair's meeting notes of 6 Aug 2021, 20 
>> Aug 2021 and 3 Sept 2021 don't reference the poll.  The 19 Nov 2021 
>> notes indicate that another poll was being considered for work 
>> prioritization, but I can't find where it was sent, if at all.
>>
>> So, could you send me the link to the DNSOP emails where the results 
>> of the previous two surveys were published please?  And for that 
>> matter where the second prioritization poll was sent out.
>
> You are correct, we did have one survey/poll.  In my memory they were 
> two different surveys, but it was one survey for prioritising existing 
> work and open questions about adopting new work.  The results were 
> presented in the DNSOP WG chairs slides of the IETF 112 meeting.  The 
> new work suggested by the WG was dnssec-bootstrapping and 
> dnssec-automation.

I was pretty sure I hadn't seen the result of the survey on the list and 
- to be blunt - it needed to be there if for no other reason than to 
memorialize the information.  As the IETF has noted time and again, 
decisions are made on the mailing list, not in working group meetings.   
Meeting presentations are generally ephemera (even more so than IDs), 
and that limits at least my reliance on them.

All that said, the WG chairs get to decide which documents are WG 
documents (through the determination of consensus), but only within the 
constraints of the model the WG has agreed upon (RFC 7221 section 2.2 
basically).  Up to this point, adoption has been by discussion on the 
mailing list.  A change to that should probably be discussed before 
being implemented.

However, going back to the original issue: There was a disconnect that 
could have been avoided here.  The mail message implied/said that the 
poll was for adoption.  The poll header said something different - that 
it was to select the first 2-3 to be sent out for call for adoption.  
The actual poll question asked which documents to adopt now.   I read 
the mail message, and jumped into the poll without reading the header 
and read the poll question only.   It took me this last message 
re-reading things to understand that probably what you thought Tim said 
is not what I heard.  I have this suspicion reading Ted and Brian's 
messages that they got to the same place as I did.

E.g. The poll question should have read: "For the following documents, 
when should DNSOP send out Calls for Adoption?" with "Now" and "Not Yet, 
if ever" and "Never" rather than "Adopt Now" etc.   Alternately, using 
the same question you used in the prior survey (Important, Not 
Important, Indifferent) might have given you the info you needed to 
prioritize.

Tim should have probably followed his earlier inclination and just sent 
out the six adoption calls.

Later, Mike


>
> As the notes indicate, we considered starting a poll but ended up not 
> doing so for IETF 113.  Thanks for correcting.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Benno
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop