Subject: Matt Crawford: Re: Opt-in Decision day: Postponed

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:31:02 -0700

FYI

------- Forwarded Message

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:29:35 -0500
From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Opt-in Decision day: Postponed
In-reply-to: "08 Jun 2002 11:40:20 EDT."
 <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked], [email-masked]
Message-id: <[email-masked]>

    The reason I'm specifically concerned is that there was wg consensus on
    opt-in with delegations only restriction at ietf 53.  This dns
    directoriate group seems to be running against the consensus of the wg
    by "not liking" opt-in. Additionally, this group has not publically
    produced anything that defines their dislike that the authors can defend
    against. To me, the issue of having an undocumented decision point by a
    small group of people in a "open" standards organization smells bad.

If the previous forms are followed, the next thing you should expect
to see is a very large meeting room packed with persons who have
never before been seen in a working group meeting or on the mailing
list.  The chairs will pose some ill-formed questions and then
announce that they will write up a "consensus" they gleaned from the
resulting noises.  After a prolonged interval, such a document will
appear and will repudiates any consensus which may have been
supposed to exist prior to the packed meeting.

		 Matt Crawford
	No longer seen in the wg meetings
	    and on the mailing list.

(Permission granted to forward to namedroppers.  The
chair/moderator/AD won't accept it from my address.)

------- End of Forwarded Message

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>