Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Wed, 21 September 2005 15:06 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EI6BX-0000In-AW; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:06:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EI6BU-0000IS-KV; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:06:56 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27171; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [204.9.221.21] (helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EI6HV-0004y3-Sq; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:13:12 -0400
Received: from [64.3.161.67] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 526330; Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:08:19 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0620077dbf5720926d8e@[192.168.2.2]>
In-Reply-To: <29723.1127313120@munnari.OZ.AU>
References: <p0620071dbf52f99dab4c@[192.168.2.2]> <29723.1127313120@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:06:52 -0400
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Robert, Our process, as currently instantiated, has three stages after a document is submitted to the IESG for review/approval: 1. AD Review -- the responsible AD reviews the document and determines if is ready for IETF LC. Sometimes other things happen at this stage, like review by certain specialist groups (such as the MIB doctors) and/or resolution of AD Review comments. 2. IETF LC -- the document goes to IETF LC, after which the responsible AD determines whether the community has consensus to publish the document. Any issues raised in IETF LC need to be addressed before he document is approved by the IESG. 3. IETF Evaluation -- the full IESG reviews the document on a telechat, stating positions (yes, no objection, discuss, abstain or recuse) on the document. Any discuss positions have to be resolved before the document is forwarded to the RFC editor for publication. For a standards track document, there must also be at least one 'yes' position and at least 9 'yes/no-ob' positions for a document to be approved for publication. It was my job (as responsible AD for DNSEXT) to perform the AD review, send the document to IETF LC, determine whether or not we have IETF consensus to publish the documen and make sure that any substantive issues raised during IETF LC are addressed before sending the document to the IESG for review. In my opinion, based on the results of the IETF LC, the IETF LC raised two substantive technical issues with this specification, and the IETF community does not currently have consensus to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. If the WG continues to believe that this document should be published as a Proposed Standard, they will address these technical issues (through changes to the document, informing the community why changes are not needed, or other means) and produce a document that will achieve IETF community consensus. Like all decisions made by ADs, my decision is, of course, subject to appeal. Margaret At 9:32 PM +0700 9/21/05, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:09:07 -0400 > From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> > Message-ID: <p0620071dbf52f99dab4c@[192.168.2.2]> > >I am not going to comment on the substance of the issues, or the >doc in question, as I haven't been following what is happening with >it, nor have a read a recent version. > >But ... > > | Based on these conclusions, I do not intend to forward the LLMNR > | specification to the IESG for review and approval. > >What kind of process is going on here? As I recall it, from rfc2026, >it is the IESG that issues last calls, when it has a doc for review, and >the IESG that decides if a last call has passed or not (that is, the IESG >takes input from the comments received during the last call to help it make >its decision on what to do with the doc that has been presented to it). > >How did we ever get an IETF last call on a doc that hasn't even gone to >the IESG (apparently) but is still (apparently) under AD review ? > >And how does one AD (alone, apparently) get to draw conclusions based upon >the results of the last call ? > >What is happening here? Can't the IETF manage to either follow its >own documented processes, or change them in the approved way? > >kre _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Stuart Cheshire
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call grenville armitage
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Russ Allbery
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Russ Allbery
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bernard Aboba
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Ned Freed
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Robert Elz
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Margaret Wasserman
- .local [Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: .local Frank Ellermann
- Re: Summary of the LLMNR Last Call Bill Manning
- 2606bis (was: .local) Frank Ellermann
- Re: 2606bis (was: .local) John C Klensin
- Re: 2606bis (was: .local) JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: 2606bis Frank Ellermann
- Re: 2606bis Bill Fenner
- Re: 2606bis John C Klensin
- Re: 2606bis JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: 2606bis Brian E Carpenter