Re: [dnsext] Working group workflow (nsec3 in draft-sha256)

["Roy Arends" <roy@nominet.org.uk>]

Jelte Jansen <jelte@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote on 12/10/2008 09:40:05 AM:

> Roy Arends wrote:
> > Andrew Sullivan wrote on 12/09/2008 07:09:48 PM:
> > 
> >> 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. 
> > 
> > Not so fast:
> > 
> > I asked for implied support of NSEC3 in october 2007, and the document 

> > subsequently reflected this:
> > 
> > 
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00599.html
> > 
> > "What I do like to mandate is support for the new keytypes implies 
support 
> > for NSEC3, provided that NSEC3 is proposed standard by that time. That 

> > would avoid allocating an alias for every keytype."
> > 
> > There has been no objection since then, and the document reflected 
this, 
> > until recently. I _have_ reviewed the document in october 2007. I call 

> > that early, not late.
> > 
> 
> There was not much support either; 

How do you know? It was a significant section in a small document, there 
for about a year. During last call no one objected, and there was one 
person noting the section (unsolicited) and declaring support for it (yes, 
during last call). It wasn't until after the last call that Olafur asked 
in the middle of some mail thread if this section was okay, resulting in 
one objection. The problem with this process is, if you ask in a certain 
way, often and loud, and wait long enough, you can always get someone 
willing to object. 

It took one objection to have this section removed. And when folks are 
surprised about this, and voice their protest, you get a misplaced rant 
about working group workflow.
 
> During the last call, there were some objections to it.

I haven't seen any objections during last call. 

> So I asked the list to speak up about this issue, and there was a 
torrent of 2
> whole responses (1 for, 1 against), until the revival of the thread 
> two days ago.
> 
> Now i don't like sending or seeing '+1' messages. But we do 
> apparently need those.

+1
 
Regards,

Roy Arends
Sr. Researcher
Nominet UK

--
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/>