Subject: RE: DNSEXT WGLC: To OPT_IN or not to OPT-IN

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 20:33:32 -0800

I support OPT-In Zones.

I believe there has been consensus on the need for opt-in for
over a year.

	Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:01 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: DNSEXT WGLC: To OPT_IN or not to OPT-IN
> 
> 
> 
> This starts a two week working group last call,
> concluding on March 28'th 2003.
> 
> Q: Is there consensus by the WG, to allow Opt-in zones?
> 
> The document to base this discussion on is
>      
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-o
pt-in-05.txt

Please send explicit statements of support or disagreement.

Note this is not a last call on the technical issues in the document,
if any such issues exist they should be assumed to be fixable and not
affect the judgment on the question above.

The document is on the standards track. If this document is advanced by
the working group, it will be integrated into the DNSSECbis documents.

Silence during this working group last call will be taken as support
for opt-in based on comments made during the technical last call on
OPT-IN.

	Olafur

--
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/>

--
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/>

---

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:16:25 -0500

> I believe there has been consensus on the need for opt-in for

This belief is rooted in what?  By what metric have you determined
majority support for Opt-In with the ongoing arguments against it
here?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:49:22 -0800

> majority support for Opt-In with the ongoing arguments against it

let's not go down this rat-hole, as it is not phil's to decide/declare

randy

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:54:44 +0000

> > I believe there has been consensus on the need for opt-in for over a year.
> 

"majority support" != "consensus".  let's move on.

---

From: Brian Wellington <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:03:39 -0800 (PST)

> "majority support" != "consensus".  let's move on.

(definition 1, "Consensus" from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 
(1913)) 
 Consensus \Con*sen"sus\, n. [L. See {Consent}.]
    Agreement; accord; consent.

(definition 2, "consensus" from WordNet (r) 1.7)
 consensus
      n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general
          agreement}]

I'm not sure what definition of consensus you're using.

Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:46:14 -0500

> "majority support" != "consensus".  let's move on.

Please forgive me if it is "support" you took exception with, when
"majority" was meant to be my focus.  Sorry for the sloppy language.

The concept of majority does indeed occur in definitions of consensus,
such as at m-w.com and the WordNet definition sent here.  Even the Tao
of the IETF says the following:

  The general rule on disputed topics is that the Working Group has to
  come to "rough consensus," meaning that a very large majority of those
  who care must agree.

What I see here is that many of the people who care do NOT agree, and
assertions to the contrary -- especially ones stating the belief that
consensus was achieved a year ago -- should be substantiated.

I'm unprepared to just "move on" at this point, particularly as I too
am one of the people opposed to OPT-IN (on grounds that have all been
presented by others here).

---

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:50:59 -0500

> let's not go down this rat-hole, as it is not phil's to decide/declare

Point taken.  I'll be quiet about it now.  (Messages came a little out
of order.)