Hi Dave, > On Oct 18, 2018, at 9:26 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > >> 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 req > > 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...)
Could you point out which message I did not respond to? After your last message in the thread about my DISCUSS we had the telechat and from my discussion there with Warren it seemed we had agreed on a way forward, which seemed more appropriate for him to communicate back than for me to. I am getting on a long plane flight so can take a look at Warren’s progress thus far if I find WiFi — looks like this is close to done (thanks, Warren!). Alissa > > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
