Oops. First version had some gramatical errors. This is better edited.
Please disregard the earlier message.
---------- message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> 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".
I think the issue is that Mr. Austein would not have even known about
the private communication unless the authors had told him of it.
Further, without any substantive consideration on-list by the WG of the
proposal, Mr. Austein has "directed" the WG not to even consider the
proposal. This seems a little bit "back-alley", and not the open
discussion that ought to happen.
It seems Mr. Koch hasn't recused himself, but merely asked Mr. Austein
to act for him. That isn't recusal.
> 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.)
The 4 authors aren't formally acting in a WG role. Mr. Koch (one of the
4) said he "recused". Its not that the |authors| couldn't raise the
proposal on the list, (the authors didn't do so). The Working Group
Chair, abruptly, and without due consideration, directed the WG not to
even consider Mr. Moreau's proposal.
> 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.
Transparancy is what the IETF is about. A transparent act would be for
the authors, acting only as authors, to come forward to the working
group to discuss Mr. Moreau's suggestion, or to reject it privately, at
which point Mr. Moreau would be free to bring it up to the Working Group
himself.
> > 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...
Didn't you recently say the IETF wasn't a non-profit??? It seems to me
that your recollections may occasionally be faulty.
In fact, this issue of WG 'direction' was just recently discussed. Jeff
Schiller pointed out that a 'direction' of this sort is only appropriate
when the working group has deadlocked and can't proceed. Plainly, the
back-channel discussions don't represent the working group and don't
show the working group is dead-locked. So 'direction' is inappropriate
at this time.
> 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.
Actually, the working group hasn't had a chance to develop a consensus.
Mr. Austein's direction is premature. Such direction is only
'time-honored' when the working group can't agree. We haven't gotten to
the point of hearing all the details, so how can one claim we can't
agree and therefore need direction from the chairs?
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
