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

Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com> Thu, 07 July 2022 15:21 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 68CDEC13CF67 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.779 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_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 vv9ngI9tSk2u for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (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 85A96C13CF65 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 08:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id g14so23161381qto.9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:21:37 -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=C/2jaxqypTr3PbFEp/rEyB7u0gJ/E6jcLuxqBI7tkYk=; b=C8MUdr5KQ9OIIrRyVY2CkoTtsIGJI1KTj2l8HQoRa85NS19SM6Rg8lTW/L1xxdV9M+ f/IKyN70U3k4G9IdYYTBQtw54pLuRYXR9/yZ6Ibkiw5uL37M9q7NA9b/igYNrP8T+iQd J+vEqiz2Bv4EqzESQyq17HFFOerFvx/AJrdvMcGKHXiLrsZDtekve8pFv5t6k8CPpkEp MrUGUbhy5ERzv/jGJXk+N71eKWgJ4hkP2DvM/yxKDb/+V6GjZwxt+rot1lQxPjSwLreo WLbFRdiQCIzmU4IIdzbCufP0/yYWaga98JQfDLNVIIqt7wxtcitTDer+8uoxMYYYqWxX uq9A==
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=C/2jaxqypTr3PbFEp/rEyB7u0gJ/E6jcLuxqBI7tkYk=; b=F6/sBVFYNmmJRWaOVpMxtX5CaYgLtEsHaIr3Rn29I25E/v9z6KygC8rS/L5JFNZ+hf DohDo8MYTqbp9AL300F0xhyZNwtp+0W5mMHKrZC24Hz5dLi4TQuvXsKxm8bWVZ3ZcBAR EcoUl/NAGlvx0OblN+jMNdO90OMin3skm9W106IJi2q//zAyCnX81WVkbDE/oSK2yu6l i8mO4MVJvikRFkdJLHGtDOUqB5ov2g95JFxjQ5Fj3vaEmZWhnGFfAsmzagVYI+aWvleQ sm7F+oEMtCmNuhbM003zu9KlQiRcyn1YsQA71sE+qvW55IKLRmBFEA7WcL81ILiZB5DK qJhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/NDWKZtPZ0loLu5AapzMPXX7Zrqmixbi19ZGZL+6/FQWxQS6NM ylHyejTu7Bb0k6mvZ1rCCuXk7tKG0vyrChyX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1viq1mcS6PUa+e5U9UOVBYhCB0QrsA/0MHT2J9FYhZ7UKud/uesskqKiMCpwLXf0g5lZhtDTg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2a85:b0:470:465d:6318 with SMTP id jr5-20020a0562142a8500b00470465d6318mr40230125qvb.130.1657207295719; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:21:35 -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 d3-20020a05620a240300b006af45243e15sm28502656qkn.114.2022.07.07.08.21.33 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e702dda0-4395-7555-8678-d513c9bcfef8@nthpermutation.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:21:32 -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>
From: Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
In-Reply-To: <15bbb88a-017a-bde9-7622-5996e2335e9e@NLnetLabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZpPwQtGon3VhesYO8SdNVwgMrww>
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 15:21:38 -0000

Hi Benno -

On 7/7/2022 11:10 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 07/07/2022 16:58, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 2022, at 6:49 AM, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
>>> Gentle reminder, the poll runs until July 9.
>>
>> Can you say how the poll will be used? There was pretty strong 
>> push-back after the original announcement, and it's thus unclear how 
>> the poll results will be acted on.
>
> It helps us and the WG itself to prioritise WG activities and start a 
> regular WG call for adoption of a number of documents.  We will share 
> the results of the poll with the WG and how to make an initial 
> selection of documents that will be included in the WG call for 
> adoption process.  We currently have 6 drafts for which the authors 
> have asked WG adoption, but that is too much new work for the WG to 
> work on.
>
> Any feedback on improving the process to prioritise work in the WG is 
> welcome.

All of that is a good and just reason to send out calls for adoption.  
But the point of the previous messages was that the poll was not the way 
to do that.  Basically, making a poll choice without providing context 
and an opportunity for discussion a) lacks transparency (in that when 
the chairs make a decision, the WG has no basis on which to evaluate 
that decision), b) lacks nuance (in that the choices provided do not 
cover some shadings of what to do - e.g., not ready for consideration), 
c) lacks WG participation (a discussion about a document gets us to a 
better result than blind voting).

The fact that the chairs did not respond to the original messages is 
also a bit problematic.

Later, Mike



>
> Best,
>
> -- Benno
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop