ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify

2002-12-18 15:15:37
Please god NO...

I hope EVERYONE deeply involved in a WG documentation process has deep
DEEP conflict of interest problems.  I mean if we are not working on the
things we are documenting, how will we know if they work or not.  Saying
that WG chairs can not work for companies that need the efforts of the
WG seems like setting up a big failure, there are checks and balances,
you don't like what the chairs of a WG are doing, talk to the ADs, don't
like what the ADs say go to the IAB... This is a documented process.

I do not know about the DNS WG, but most working groups that I am aware
of also have two co-chairs, usually from different companies/areas - and
I know that my co-chair and I have to be in agreement on "char"
descisions, reducing the effect of one of us having a massive conflict
of interest.

Please do not require conflict of interest rules to enter the IETF, this
isn't the government, we NEED this to work

Bill Strahm

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of
Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer
Cc: D. J. Bernstein; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC Summary: AXFR clarify 


On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:53:28 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:58:22AM -0000,
 D. J. Bernstein <djb(_at_)cr(_dot_)yp(_dot_)to> wrote
 a message of 26 lines which said:

DNSEXT chair Olafur Gudmundsson, who has been paid for BIND work, 
writes:

For me, this is too much.

Now, on the *one* hand, I'd be surprised indeed if the chair of DNSEXT
had NOT been paid by somebody to do BIND consulting somewhere along the
line.

On the other hand, if Olafur is in fact making a living doing BIND9
development and coding for ISC or one of their clients, that might be
called a "conflict of interest" when the issue at hand is that a
specific document is "too BIND9 specific".

Personally, I'm OK with Olafur making money doing BIND.  I'm even OK on
him possibly making more if the draft becomes an RFC in its current
state.  I admit I've looked through RFC2026 and found nothing about
disclosure of conflict of interest(*).  I hate making more work for the
AD and IESG, but I think at least a "We've talked to Olafur and do/dont
think there's a problem" is called for.

(*) I'll let wiser people than I decide if there should be such a
section in a son-of-2026....
-- 
                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Computer Systems Senior Engineer
                                Virginia Tech