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

Marc Blanchet <> Wed, 18 February 2015 00:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DEA1A8848; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:14:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4o8K_WkuF_Tl; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86161A884B; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:14:23 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Barry Leiba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IAB <>, Sam Hartman <>, IETF discussion list <>, IESG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:14:26 -0000

> Le 2015-02-17 à 18:58, Barry Leiba <> 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.


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

My bad.


> 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 <> 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