Re: [homenet] naming drafts

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

I am just replying to clarify I am not complaining about you personally or
even your review. If further discussions are needed I am happy to set a
call at any time as email does not seem to me the most constructive path.

Yours,
Daniel

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Let me try to provide more background. I am reading or interpreting your
response to Ray (quoted below) that the discussion on whether the proposal
will take over DDNS is a simple discussion that does not have any
consequences. I disagree with that. It seems that raising such discussion
during a WGLC has consequences, perhaps because I do not see the technical
aspect of the discussion.

"""
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.
"""

>
> > 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.
>

The lack of support appeared to me in the WGLC quoted below which mentions
"not enough support". I interpreted this as partly resulting from
challenging the proposal but maybe I am mis-interpreting this, though I
understand it also included partly a number of reviews.

"""
Stephen and I do not believe these drafts have received enough review or
support to put them forward as representing WG consensus.
"""

If I interprete "neither support nor oppose" of your response as being
neutral, I do have hard time to read it from the WGLC report which describe
your position as follows:

"""
Stephen and Juliusz expressed that they're still not convinced that DDNS
isn't a good enough solution for the use case.
"""

That said, I am fine that there are different opinions and people have
different predictions, as long as we agree these remain personal opinions
that should not influence moving the document forward. This is not clear to
me this is the way it is interpreted.


> >
> > 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 am not accusing anyone. The discussion is toxic in my point of view
because at this point it is very hard to engage someone into reviewing the
doc, as it is asking him to take a position in favor of or against some
parties. I do not believe that this results from your review, but rather
how your review has been summarized and has influenced the chair's
decision. Reviews are always welcome.


> > 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.
>

The question concerned the number of reviews that would have been
considered sufficient. I do not understand how this can be interpreted as
chairs not making enough effort to get reviews. It was not my intent. That
said, I remember that people committed to review, and maybe a reminder
would have been welcome.


>
> > 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.
>
>
I do not think that was not predictable, nor something that we learned
during this WGLC. If we had some other specific expectations, those should
have been clearly provided. And it is still unclear to me how many reviews
were expected for example.


> > 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.
>
>
Let me rephrase myself, I realize my words are ambiguous and apologize for
it.
I really appreciate your review. I appreciate your sharing even non
technical opinions, even triggering a discussion. I am not asking that the
review needs to be positive either. However, I have the impression that non
technical opinions had too much influence on the outcome.



> >> From my perspective all comments have been responded to, and
> >> technical
> > comments have been addressed.
>
> Personally, I don't agree.


I am happy to respond to comments that have not been answered.


> 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.
>
>
The document has been adopted by a WG, we have done such a process. I do
not understand why this should be re-done.


> 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
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson