IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797101294A9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:29:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Cyh_XvSmteAk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x235.google.com (mail-wr0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::235]) (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 E5EC812947A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:29:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x235.google.com with SMTP id i10so163839891wrb.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:29:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=lQHHJwnVygxHXSlJqK0vON325f75LrN9+2YsWiFpvsw=; b=vXQbermmjIvlOUaD8nbfgSe5vEx8wl652Hccvv2VyxrLIQSr3KSeugqhX/KCfcDLcn yWtoU+3PA13yI7vVGVtOnJC1r5wF1x6BhEkCKj7KzNhZ7lDztu30UlwlMQwTRQEwWAn2 D2FLUj2zfhJV0QE/wLeEHpJxqch/wIiHzN2St39aUPTMq6BI4ZNV0nJKrpy2mWFKbfNi QS3GeMJtTrcG/IJSBkbyx2pbuEHZMD35ww/7hcciGHPJeTvg9J04LU+zpMsVSUG7HJ42 Ew1ASKMjltAzh8a6ffGIg3g+MeOd5TTe1QLsANm3Y1zXOA8oYxNAWtuY1Ozujp0Tli1V 912g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=lQHHJwnVygxHXSlJqK0vON325f75LrN9+2YsWiFpvsw=; b=Dwjnr5Q+JoBS7f0BLVjacLqegWwRaubDtyyJlpEnjBXEpvsMIlz4IZc1v/MQ+z6I6p G3igNZUHbPI9+PgehL2kvweYi6neJF8/7nJuj+cv2xI6W/zYxcR1l1b5fgUQtRi6auF6 Ugr5gpWGRGjDkWLObhskj5Iqvb8KU4kRJDoMDKXH1R5E5yL+1agBLyj/pbfMo4Nij2Qn /ETomSQk2MQ9W+S3ruYZvTKVdSBIPmWv0hIH/heLvCPAmrRfYkBMgAmksN+JZ8L84UNw 69XtQ5IgzowfOKTruHulpKbkFwCFSLM1cZXGgw9C6WQfQYv0YjUN9pZuRg3bq0dr7PG1 JJ5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kux9N6Rbpaw24RTScGLYSn9D6T5VvD+aQFzt1j95OL533PG5SqoFmUyhtgQ2OOJQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.163.81 with SMTP id d17mr23285870wrb.93.1487057339351; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.137.219] ([109.253.229.215]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e71sm75356wma.8.2017.02.13.23.28.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:28:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_176808A1-A3CB-4CDF-90D8-ABAA551BCDDA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:28:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/86yLCYfODCAS3ONTz0E7XtlFheY>
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 14 Feb 2017 07:29:02 -0000

On 14 Feb 2017, at 8:01, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> And workgroups get it wrong.
> 
> I gave up trying to convince behave that the DNS64 DNSSEC processing
> was insane.

<snip />

> Should I have raise these again at IETF last call?

If at IETF LC you said something along the lines of “The specification does this, and I think it’s insane because XXX. It was raised in the WG [1] but was rejected [2],[3].  I still think it’s insane and that the spec should not go forward as it is.”

I think that would be fine, but anyone jumping to agree with you would be properly asked why they didn’t participate in the WG. In any case, it could be useful input for the IESG who are the ultimate judges of IETF consensus.

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email