Thierry Moreau wrote:
Rob's message is replying on the mailing list to a private e-mail
message from me to the four authors for the -01 revision of
draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming (Prague dnsop meeting minutes section
Rob's note is not a "reply". It well might be pursuing a matter you raised
privately, but his note follows none of the syntax, style or even semantics of
a "reply".
Besides that, you sent a note to folks who are formally acting in a wg role,
and your note pertained to a fundamental wg issue, and you somehow think that
your sending it to them privately means that they shouldn't even raise the
topic on the list? (Note that your message was not quoted, so we can dispense
with "copyright" related issues.)
My own view is they would have been derelict if he had *not* pursued the
matter with the public wg mailing list. That's what IETF transparency is
supposed to be about.
In terms of wg governance, I doubt the wg chair has the authority to so
unilaterally "direct" a wg draft editor on a specific technical issue,
Oh boy. What you don't know about IETF wg management methods...
Rob carefully qualified his directive, to be contingent upon the absence of wg
consensus to the contrary. This is a time-honored wg management method for
making progress.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
