On 10/18/2018 12:04 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Dave has stated that he is unwilling to do this work. Instead of having
the WG document simply stall, Benno and I have agreed that we would
split them between us. If anyone would like to volunteer to help out, we
would not take it amiss.
Please note that this is not a normal situation - in general we expect
the authors to deal with IESG DISCUSS (and other ballots) - but we
wanted to move this document along.
(Oh boy. Had Warren merely said something neutral like 'Dave won't be
able to do that' I wouldn't feel the need to post this. But given his
wording...)
Alissa's Discuss is based on an extrapolation of the Update semantic,
beyond anything that is documented because, I'm told, the IESG hasn't
been able to reach consensus on relevant details.
Worse, her concern is that someone editing one of the cited specs will
not know which part of the -fix document applies to them. Given the
detail that /is/ provided in -fix, IMO the odds of that problem are
lower than 'unlikely'.
There are 35+ documents cited, so the task that is being imposed is
non-trivial.
My understanding is that it is not uncommon to have an Updates citation
to something like the base Attrleaf document, with no additional detail
guiding the update to a cited document. From that perspective, the -fix
document is already considerably more detailed than often/sometimes
required.
I'll also note that I gave this feedback to Alissa directly, earlier and
she did not respond to it. That failure to engage is just one more
problem with this Discuss. (And it hearkens back to years ago when ADs
would do this sort of thing regularly. Not me, of course, but some...)
And just to be clear, obviously I'll add whatever text the wg agrees on.
My limitation is spending the significant on a task that appears to be
entirely unnecessary.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
