Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 13 Feb 2017, at 22:01, Mark Andrews wrote:

> I gave up trying to convince behave that the DNS64 DNSSEC processing
> was insane.  [...]
>
> I also gave up trying to get 5.9. "Always Set the CD Bit on Queries"
> removed from the draft for RFC 6840.  [...]
>
> Should I have raise these again at IETF last call?

I would hope that you would have appealed to the chair at the time of 
the chair declaring the document ready for Last Call, and if that failed 
appealed to the AD. And it should have gone to Last Call with a note in 
the shepherd writeup indicating that a participant identified what he 
thought were two essential objections, and the reasoning for why the WG 
still felt that the outcome was reasonable. If that all happened, then 
no, you shouldn't bring it up at Last Call, except perhaps to identify 
the issue to others with expertise in the area who weren't part of the 
discussion and who might be able to better explain why these were 
"WG-running-off-the-cliff" issues and not 
"reasonable-engineering-tradeoffs". But you had better say *that*, not 
simply rehash the issue. Last Call should be about "something went wrong 
in the judgement of consensus", not "I prefer a different outcome".

Now, if Last Call was the first time that you noticed the issue, that 
would suck, but then it is reasonable to bring it up.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]