Subject: [dnsext] Point of order

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:52:08 -0400

The chairs want to clarify few issues:

The standard for adopting a document is much lower than the standard for
advancing a document.
Accepting a document is the WG saying we think there might be some merit
to the idea.
Advancing a document is the WG saying we have examined the issues,
studied the implications and think this for the better.

Accepting a document that is a rough idea is fine, documents should
improve from WG feedback. Once a document is a WG document the editor
of the document MUST reflect the will of the WG in the document even
if he/she disagrees. Adopting an document is NO guarantee the document will
advance as the WG may at any time decide to kill the document.

We have a restriction on adopting documents, which is that we have at least
five committed reviewers.  This does not commit those reviewers to approving
the document in the end.  It merely is a commitment on the part of those
reviewers to the editor(s) and WG chairs that they will in fact perform
the review.  We have this restriction just so WG documents don't end up
languishing at the end for want of final review.

Secondly due to our current charter adding any of the documents listed
in Andrews message on further FR documents:
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg00676.html

and/or adding any GOST algorithm support
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg00422.html

will require a charter update. The chairs plan on submitting a
new charter to the WG next week once we have determined the
list of drafts and topics to be admitted.

         Olafur (and Andrew)

--
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: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 12:20:49 -0400

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

> The standard for adopting a document is much lower than the standard for

Then I support adopting EDNS PING, and will commit to review it, with
the full understanding that the
failure-indistinguishable-from-fallback characteristic could prove
unsurmountable.  By adopting the document, we can consider it
carefully and separate that discussion from the "should we adopt it or
not" discussion.  In other words, I'm suggesting that adopting the
document will put us in a better place to more carefully consider it
than we are now.

Matt