Re: [DNSOP] draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

["Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <[e-mail]>]

On 02.08.22 10:35, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>> Had I wanted to do so, I would not have approached dnsop in the first place.
> Had you wanted to which? I'm confused.

I came to this group because of concerns that Warren raised, and because 
the draft sits before me.  I have reviewed what discussion I could find 
in the logs relating to Warren's draft, which amounts to either (a) this 
is ICANN's problem or (b) there is nobody willing to make use of the 
space.  Please feel free to inform me if I have missed something.

Regarding (a), that is not my interpretation of RFC 6761.  RFC 6761 
drops special use domains firmly in the lap of the IETF, which is 
presumably why Warren brought his draft here and why I came here and 
didn't go to ICANN.  Regarding (b), we have someone here willing to at 
least have the conversation.

> By approaching dnsop in the first place with a box of freshly lit matches you seem precisely to be ignoring the prior discussion.

I didn't light the matches.  That, I'm afraid, is the nature of the 
publication request.  From an ISE perspective, my intent is to take 
quite seriously concerns that the IESG raises, with an eye toward safety 
in this case.

> If you don't intend to publish the drafts on your table then I don't understand what you're saying in the context of the hat you're wearing.

I have not made a publication decision.  That decision would be far 
EASIER to make if this group provided guidance, which is why I am here.  
Absent that guidance, I will... muddle along and make the best decision 
I can, again taking into account the IESG's forthcoming 5742 review.

I could have denied this publication request at its outset, but that 
would have sent a message to namespace researchers and developers that 
their work is not welcome, and that they should just ignore the IETF and 
the RFC series.  Is that what you would advocate?  Does that make the 
Internet safer?

> Perhaps more fundamentally the idea of the ISE promoting work to be done in a working group apparently without the involvement of the chairs itself seems confusing. You know more about the job than I do, but in the past when I have published documents through the independent stream, the ISE's consultation was limited to an IESG conflict review.

The ISE may consult whoever is necessary to consult to achieve the best 
outcome.  Let's please not attempt to make this a process argument.

Eliot