Subject: RE: DNSEXT WGLC: DNSSEC Opt-in

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:55:52 -0800

> Default action: if there is NO response to these questions 
> Opt-in document
> will be removed from the working group.

That is a curious choice of default action. OK I will state for 
the record yet again.

Without OPT-IN there is no prospect of DNS-SEC being deployable
in the large zones. OPT-IN thus meets a critical requirement for
which no competeing solution has been proposed.

The choices facing this group are therefore

	1) Accept Opt-in
	2) Abandon DNS-SEC

The lack of technical objections in last call is more usually taken
as an indication that there are no technical objections to the
proposal.

> Note: We are only asking the technical questions about 
> Opt-in, the political
> question if we want to standardize this will be addressed if the
> technical questions are affirmative.

If you don't want to discuss the requirement then the only thing
that is left to discuss is technical objections. So silence can
only mean consent.

> Q: Is the description in the document of Opt-In complete ?

How on earth is this meant to get a positive response? No IETF
specification has ever been "complete". The authors believe
the draft to be complete or they would not have proposed it
go into last call.

This appears to me to be yet another attempt to legitimate fuzzy
objections that dare not speak their name as in:

	'I'm not happy but I think I'm too important to have to 
	give reasons why'.  

	'we have discussed this draft in the context of the TIA project,

	objections were raised but they are classified'.

	'This draft does not explain the consequences of 20% of
	microfleems being subjugdanate'

A compelling requirement has been described. No technical objections
were raised during last call. Therefore the draft should go forward.

> Q: Does this document satisfy people as being implement able 
> and testable specification ?

It is a heck of a lot more implementable that what we have at present.

I repeat, either the .com issue is addressed or DNSSEC DIES NOW.

> Q: Are there implementations of opt-in and have there been any tests ?

Yes, see comments by Paul.

> The chairs will consider any response received on the mailing list or
> sent privately to BOTH chairs, by February 12'th.

If someone has a technical objection they should be able to discuss it
in public.

The working group process is a public process. No cabals, no
directorates,
no veto for the chairs. As RFC 2026 states:

   No contribution that is subject to any requirement of confidentiality
   or any restriction on its dissemination may be considered in any part
   of the Internet Standards Process, and there must be no assumption of
   any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.

		Phill

---

From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:55:32 -0500

>That is a curious choice of default action. OK I will state for

Not at all, Chairs are asking for guidance and warning what the action
is going to be if there is no guidance from the working group.
For wg-chairs it is much simpler to drop a document than continue
processing it, thus that was selected as the default action (this was done
after consulting with the AD).

>as an indication that there are no technical objections to the

The problem during the last call, was NO COMMENTS.
There where no objections no suggested text changes, no requests for
clarification and NO statements of SUPPORT.
How can we as chairs interpret silence ?
The questions posted are indented to drive a discussion, nothing more
nothing less.

>that is left to discuss is technical objections. So silence can

We have discussed the requirement in the past and the justification for
Opt-in, and every time the debate deteriorates quickly.
In this case we are trying to drive a civil discussion on the
"pure" technical issues.
Nothing more, nothing less.

If the technical specification is of sufficient quality then we can
go on to the bigger picture.

>the draft to be complete or they would not have proposed it

I as a author of few ID's know that it takes one or more Last call(s)
and someone implementing the specification to shake out all the
under/over specifications and other mistakes. Authors like to think
that each version is the final one.
If the comments are all nit picks then the specification is "complete"
in my mind, if the comments require major change the document is not
"complete", it is up to Randy and me to evaluate which category the
changes (if any) fall into.

>were raised during last call. Therefore the draft should go forward.

Again, not a single statement was received saying the document was ready.

>It is a heck of a lot more implementable that what we have at present.

We need someone to say so in public.

>I repeat, either the .com issue is addressed or DNSSEC DIES NOW.

This is out of scope at this point.

>Yes, see comments by Paul.

Evidence needs to be posted to the mailing list[1].

>If someone has a technical objection they should be able to discuss it

Yes, any relevant comment sent to chairs will either be forwarded to
mailing list or summarized.
The main reason for this procedure is to allow people to post comments
anonymously for what ever reason they have.
We also wanted to make sure both of us where in the loop on all
discussions in the past comments where frequently only sent to the
chair that issued the last call.
So far we have received 2 private messages, one was asking for
guidance on how to constructively submit a comment,
the other one a joke.

>    any confidentiality obligation with respect to any such contribution.

Agree
         Olafur

[1] In the past I received lots of flack for insisting that contents of
relevant URL's be posted to the mailing list, this is done for archival
reason more than anything else. 

--
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/>