Thanks to everyone who’s participated in the poll. As we’ve said before, the chairs rely on a number of factors when setting WG administrative priorities, but occasional polls help us clarify feedback we’re hearing from the WG list, other DNS-oriented WGs, and the broader community.
Since WG consensus determines whether we advance a draft we’ve adopted, we work hard to make sure drafts that are adopted are likely to result in quality documents that will have that consensus support to publish as RFCs. Additional comments are always welcome. Our Poll answers are "Adopt Now","Adopt Not Now", and "Don't Adopt" We mapped these responses to 1, 0, -1 (no answer is also 0). Final Results: * draft-sahib-domain-verification-techniques, 14 * draft-dwmtwc-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures, 13 * draft-rebs-dnsop-svcb-dane, 12 draft-klh-dnsop-rfc8109bis, 7 draft-wing-dnsop-structured-dns-error-page, 2 draft-dulaunoy-dnsop-passive-dns-cof, -2 Our Poll answers are "Adopt Now","Adopt Not Now", and "Don't Adopt" We mapped these responses to 1, 0, -1 (no answer is also 0). On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 6:44 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All > > We have six documents that have requested adoption from the working group. > My opinion is that we send out adoption calls for all of these and let the > working group sort it out, but was told that is just crazy. Since Warren > loves these poll things, we put another one together on all the documents > in question. > > > https://forms.gle/TVKeokYvnU55eq2x7 > > > We'll run this poll for two weeks and end on the 9th of July. However, we > have a chai9rs call on the 5th of July and I'm confident we'll have an > obvious clear set of documents to begin adoption calls on. > > thanks > tim > > > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
