On 6/18/2021 6:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Jun 18, 2021, at 2:21 PM, Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote:
Peter van Dijk <peter.van.d...@powerdns.com> writes:
I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations
I keep meaning to republish it with Olafur's suggested reduced title
(since it's really describing just one problem). But it's unlikely to
get published as an RFC due to lack of consensus after a long drawn out
conversation where most of the WG stopped reading due to the harsh
language of some messages.
For those who don't remember, the lack of consensus was based on too few people
speaking to support the document after one WG member kept harshly objecting to
some of the wording. This happened well WG Last Call was finished. The chairs
decided to kill the document rather than deal decisively with the one
obstructionist WG participant.
The document failed of WG consensus twice - including the last time
around. Blaming that on me seems to be rewriting history and somewhat
of a personal attack. And actually seems a bit out of character for you.
Given the amount of work I did on the document and the amount of text
that Wes thought was useful that did get incorporated, calling me an
obstructionist has me quoting the Princess Bride ... you know the
quote. For your edification, obstructionism is interfering or impeding
with the business for the sole purpose of delaying the process. While
you may have that opinion, it is not supported by the factual record and
is again somewhat of a personal attack.
This document was never effectively a WG edited document - even after
adoption, Wes kept the editing pen and accepted or rejected text based
on his sole judgement. That's not necessarily a bad thing for a given
document, but it can make it difficult to gain consensus. Besides a few
other comments, this was a mostly a dialog between me and him on the
validity of the math. AFAICT, no third party spent the time to do any
analysis of Wes' work, nor to disprove my analysis leaving some of my
concerns unresolved and a document with less than useful and at times
confusing results. E.g. see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7or09HOoMjcJdWD576OahbOyHP8/
and
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1nUrmIWSoD_UA6lYxjHskEr60uo/
and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JEPKl_3A5azV_l_UYKTtXGb8QtU/
At the end, I objected to the publication of this in the standards
track, and to inaccuracies in the document shepherd summary along with
the fact that no new WG last call had actually happened prior to the
request for publication. The WG chair pulled it back from publication
requested, the authors fixed the intended status and published -13, and
the document was placed for last call looking for support. It got none,
and was eventually marked by the WG chairs as dead when it expired.
Note that I placed no objections during the final last call and not a
single person - including you Paul - voiced support.
If you want to resurrect it, maybe grab a new editor and put Wes and me
on a more even playing field for determining the final text. Otherwise
Requiescat in Pace for the document.
Later, Mike
It can probably be dropped from the active
list because of this.
I would like to see the document, which we all already agreed on, moved to IETF
Last Call instead.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
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
