On May 16, 2014, at 11:02 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote: > I gave up on reading the first response to my comments as I did not want to > push back strongly; it's an effort and it can be viewed as antagonistic.
I think there's a fine line between ratholing and not getting the point across. I would really encourage you, if you feel that you are in danger if ratholing with someone, to simply note that your comment has not been addressed in the draft and then stop talking. Mention it again during last call. If the chairs do not account for this in their consensus call, complain. This bypasses the ratholing process. If the chairs are part of the ratholing, then complain to the AD, or the IESG. This is not antagonism: it is opposition. Opposition is a key part of the IETF process. It doesn't mean that you get to have your way, but valid points you raise should be addressed. When the IESG reviews a document that's made it all the way up through the process, we feel somewhat bound to accept what the working group says unless there's a really serious problem. So it's vitally important that working group participants' feedback be considered and addressed in the consensus call. By the time we get it, it's too late for major course changes. (I realize that I am not telling you anything you don't already know, but I'm playing to the crowd here... :) That said, I would rather document this and say "here abide monsters" than not document it; what I would have liked to see in the CDNI document would have been a great deal more DNS fu during the working group process. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
