Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 17 February 2015 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218F81A90EC; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:58:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p7Vc-KhaMnwl; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f48.google.com (mail-la0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFCFB1A88D8; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:58:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labgf13 with SMTP id gf13so38988724lab.9; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:58:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=g+hkl06O3uRDdMAki5ggZWJwOelYZCWqv5eJUV6QUEs=; b=oZA1l36YHeKoubHIgFfLNFnwnbsR3XPTgsvH21oL8G7ZWCItSn+qpmjRxjmSfbl724 5h59gWv1Eq1dh24qDD5+e4iyF1tZGIYBZbrqMAyo1FTvI1GsOML1dX2NBbHz4920N/VV vakIJeKRnykS4KPqSxqq6Sm6XvZQD+HJ38NC71wqsEQFc1o5Iy48flbPzmyYOlYY/yfe 15GVqAkusKa9i6q1Lmgi1SPC/AY1eCiX3YNSvb3lVv8aQpxJ8SEgubYf1cNSfXP6saHl sLEaaZ6ymuAd8uIh1Qagj2dtecEOlYEbgcYEbxJmNqPi0vQWGgjaTaRh0j3tPd3pmROa C4Lw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.133.132 with SMTP id pc4mr20214596lbb.33.1424217515484; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.127.165 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:58:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <tsld258rvbp.fsf@mit.edu>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <tsld258rvbp.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:58:35 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: NQ3_PQV7k_MqNbmwHpx8pkfXw-I
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ+J=-SNd1rWCUM5ttH+Nce-V3R9xnC==2xUMFvP9amUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5alNDIK4VDslLuq8gJJfawPg5IM>
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:58:39 -0000

Sam, the document is in the IETF stream (NOT the IAB stream), and Jari
is the responsible AD.  Jari will, of course, do the usual job of the
responsible AD and will be the one responsible for evaluating
consensus, with the oversight of the IESG as a whole.

I don't see this as being any different to any individual submission,
which is what this looks like from a procedural point of view.

Barry


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
> The message below sounds like it perports to be a judgment of consensus
> and a summary of last call comments ffor a draft being published as IETF
> stream as a standards action.
> This document is authored by the IAB.
>
> Mark Blanchet, the author of this message is an IAB member.
>
> I have a huge process concern with this.  I'd expect that the person
> judging consensus for an IETF last call on a standards action would be a
> member of the IESG, and especially not one of the authors of the draft,
> which for an IAB document should include the entire IAB.
>
> >From time to time the IESG might delegate that role to a document
> shepherd who is not a member of the IESG.  I'd expect that the IESG
> member would still ultimately judge consensus, but I can see a shepherd
> writing up an initial message.  I think such a delegation to an IAB
> member for an IAB document is entirely inappropriate.
>
> I'm very uncomfortable with the apparent process here and believe that
> that to avoid doubt a member of the IESG needs to step in and make their
> own independent assessment of the last call comments.
> If my understanding is correct and we've already misstepped here, I
> think delegation would be inappropriate in this instance.
>
> --Sam
>