Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 08/06/2021 14:55, Daniel Migault wrote:
> I disagree that discussing whether the proposal will take over DDNS
> is a side discussion that unfortunately happens at a bad time. 

Sorry, I don't get what you mean.

> If I
> interpret the WGLC report, it is clearly noted as a lack of support.

No. It's me being critical of the text. I neither support
nor oppose this stuff, but the arguments presented for that
part aren't convincing IMO, which is what my comment said.

> 
> Predictions are not a technical discussion and can be very wrong (
> "we will never make a 32 bit operating system", "there is no reason
> anyone would want a computer in their home"... the list can be as
> long as we wish). It should not be considered in the decision to move
> the document forward. Will it replace DDNS - I do not know. Not more
> than Stephen or Juliusz. I am happy to have this discussion in 2
> years. Today it gives a toxic tone to the discussion.

Toxic? That's seems quite overblown. And plain wrong, if
you mean it to describe my review. I can understand the
frustration of working on something like this and not
seeing it progress as planned, but accusing me of creating
toxicity is not a fair accusation for you to make.

> I agree that more reviews is always preferred, but I am wondering how
> many reviews would have been considered sufficient.

Oh come on - we've tried a number of times to get people
to review these documents and we've never really gotten
that to happen. The level of review is nowhere near
sufficient to declare some meaningful WG consensus.

> Looking at the
> homenet mailing list we can see that the number of reviews reflects
> the participation of the mailing list.

That's true. I think it may be time to recognise reality
and close the WG perhaps.

> Though I really value your
> review, I am not sure that (even with no hat) it encourages
> additional reviews, as it forces the potential reviewer to take
> position against the opinion of the chair. It seems to me that, if
> the number of reviews were an issue, this could have been addressed
> otherwise.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. As chair I wouldn't ask
for it to be published without doing my own personal review.
And I refuse to guarantee all such reviews will be positive.

>> From my perspective all comments have been responded to, and
>> technical
> comments have been addressed.

Personally, I don't agree. As chair, I think it's moot,
as we don't have sufficient review to declare consensus
either way. (To be clear - the DDNS point is also moot
in terms of whether or not the technical comments have
been handled - that was a non-nit editorial point.)

> Regarding the support, the proposal was initiated by an ISP. Today, I
> am interested in this proposal because we have some demand for it.
> That some folks prefer using DDNS for their own purpose is orthogonal
> to us. This is why we want it to be published.

Sure, and as I said I'm not opposed to that. I suspect the
best thing is for the authors to chat with our AD and see
if he's either willing to AD-sponsor it, or to ask another
WG to adopt, or try find a dispatch-like process to see if
enough interest/review can be found that way.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Yours, Daniel
> 
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning.
>>> 
>>> So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF
>>> standardization process must also produce drafts that are very
>>> likely to gain traction to displace non-IETF non-standardised
>>> products that are already widely commercially deployed?
>> 
>> No. This is not a process hurdle. It was one amongst a bunch of
>> personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy to discuss with the
>> authors without wearing any chair or other hat.
>> 
>> The process problem with these drafts is the lack of review means
>> there's no way to claim they represent any useful level of WG
>> consensus.
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ homenet mailing
>> list [e-mail] 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>> 
> 
>