Warren Kumari wrote:
I will point out that the DNSOP chairs are not SAA, and that this is
not the main list.
Irrelevant.
As Suzanne Woolf wrote:
: As some of you have noted, the thread under the subject "DNSSEC
: as a Best Current Practice" has included some inappropriate posts,
: not consistent with the IETF Code of Conduct or guidance on keeping
: the WG mailing list professional and productive.
we are discussing whether some behavior is considered to be
"not consistent with the IETF Code of Conduct or guidance" by
IETF consensus or not, which is not specific to DNSSEC WG.
RFC 3934 says: "As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more
individuals may engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in the
opinion of the WG chair, is disruptive to the WG process. Unless the
disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be stopped
immediately, the WG chair should attempt to discourage the disruptive
behavior by communicating directly with the offending individual. If
the behavior persists, the WG chair should send at least one public
warning on the WG mailing list."
So, interpretation of the RFC3934 published in 2004 is essentially
important, which is why I wrote in 2019:
: IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid
: technical reasoning only to make network operations prohibitively
: painful is a garbage protocol.
: LISP, which perform ID to locator mapping, which is best
: performed by DNS, in a lot less scalable way than DNS
: is a garbage protocol.
I hope you, now, can interpret the rfc properly,
also, RFC2418 says:
Whatever the rfc says, interpretation on it against "the
freedom of speech" is wrong.
> In any case, this particular discussion is not helping us make
> progress on any of our work.
Recognizing DNSSEC hopeless and stop operating DNSSEC is a progress
on our work of DNS operations.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
