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

Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Wed, 18 February 2015 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 66DEA1A8848; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:14:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 4o8K_WkuF_Tl; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86161A884B; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kuwa.viagenie.ca (kuwa.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.98]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C29840391; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:14:26 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJ+J=-SNd1rWCUM5ttH+Nce-V3R9xnC==2xUMFvP9amUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:14:23 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <627D4F2F-05D8-40FB-B50B-202867EE7E4C@viagenie.ca>
References: <20140520204238.21772.64347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <500031A0-DF45-409E-AACB-F79C32032E38@viagenie.ca> <tsld258rvbp.fsf@mit.edu> <CALaySJJ+J=-SNd1rWCUM5ttH+Nce-V3R9xnC==2xUMFvP9amUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/d1B7zIg97r0Ai9yASxmml5-puR4>
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, 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: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:14:26 -0000

> Le 2015-02-17 à 18:58, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> a écrit :
> 
> 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.

yes.

I think Sam was referring to my unappropriate use of the word concensus in first item of the summary, which caused confusion.

My bad.

Marc.

> 
> 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
>>