[dnsext] Working group workflow

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

Dear colleagues,

I'm writing to express some concern over the working group work flow.
What concerns me is that some current events may be part of a larger
pattern of how work gets done in this group.

We are currently embroiled in an argument about different algorithm
identifiers for NSEC and NSEC3 records.  This new round of objections
started with one participant immediately before the document was sent
for publication, and it did not address the fundamental arguments that
had been made during WGLC.

Moreover, the new round of objections is really late.  I sent a
message
(http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg02113.html)
to the WG on 22 October, noting that we were planning this change.  I
also noted at the time that after the new draft was published, I'd
wait a week before sending the document to the IESG.  On 24 October, I
drew to everyone's attention that the new draft had been posted
(http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg02133.html).
Nobody said anything.  I actually waited more than a week.  Nobody
said anything to me in Minneapolis, either.  

But now, well after the WG is supposed to be done with the document,
we have a new round of objections that re-open a previously closed
discussion.  

The last call for the document in question started shortly after the
meeting in Dublin.  For a complicated document, perhaps such a long
period of deliberation is important.  For a document of this brevity
and clarity, I find the delay a little depressing, not to say
alarming.

Now, I do not wish to suggest, even for a moment, that if you realise
that there's a critical problem with a specification way late in the
process, that you should keep quiet.  It is of course the central
responsibility of participants to ensure that the documents we produce
represent our best technical judgement on the topic in question.
Moreover, I appreciate that this is a volunteer organization, and that
people have day jobs.  Nevertheless, if the working group cannot give
a document as short as this one adequate attention so that
controversies are addressed to the satisfaction of the working group,
then maybe it is an indication that people do not consider the work of
the working group important enough to prioritize it above other things
they have to do.  In that case, the most responsible thing we can do
is to shut down the working group, and stop committing to additional
tasks.  If this work isn't important enough for us to do in a
reasonable time (the document in question first came to the WG in July
of 2006), I'm not sure it's important enough for us to do.

It is simply unfair to the editors of WG documents to leave them
hanging without review, or to perform review very late and raise
showstopper problems after everyone else has completed their work.  If
you need to review something before a deadline passes, and you're not
going to have time, please say so.  It is similarly unfair to the rest
of the IETF to wait until documents are going to IETF last call, and
have a discussion more appropriate to the WG on the IETF list.

I am hoping that, with new work the WG is taking on, we are keeping
these factors in mind when agreeing to take the work.  We need to set
realistic, achievable deadlines for ourselves and stick to them.  If
we can't do that, then we shouldn't take on new work.

Best regards, 

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

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