Hi Bernard,
I'll start with the process portion of your message and answer the
technical portion in my next note...
At 9:31 PM -0700 9/19/05, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Please remember, though, that most of my note was not meant to
express my own
technical opinion, it was an attempt to summarize the issues that
were raised
by others in this discussion.
The job of an IESG member is not to repeat mistatements, it is to use their
judgement.
We apparently disagree about the job of an IESG member WRT IETF LC...
I believe that the purpose of an IETF LC is to determine if the IETF
has consensus to publish a document. I believe that my job, during
IETF LC, is to judge whether that consensus exists -- which is
usually demonstrated through lack of any objection. In this case,
there were significant objections to publishing this document, and I
do not believe that IETF consensus currently exists to publish this
document as a Proposed Standard RFC.
An IESG member's technical judgement is used at two phases: AD
Review and IESG Review. This document was submitted for publication
because the DNSEXT WG thought that it was ready for publication as a
Proposed Standard RFC. This document then passed AD Review and was
sent to IETF LC because, in my judgement, it was ready for
publication at PS. The community disagreed.
In this and other instances, the IESG appears to have lost sight
of its mission. The best interest of the Internet community lies not in
blocking the publication of documents that fall outside today's orthodoxy,
but rather in providing information to the Internet community. In this case,
that interest would be best served by publishing *all* documents
relating to mDNS and LLMNR, especially the ones that the DNSEXT WG has found
most objectionable (such as DNS-SD, and Bill Manning's DISCOVER OPCODE draft).
I absolutely disagree that the best interests of the community would
be served by publishing all of these documents as Proposed Standard
RFCs. It might make sense to publish some or all of them (I haven't
actually read all of them) as Informational RFCs, and that is one of
the potential paths forward here.
Publication of a Proposed Standard RFC requires IETF LC and IETF
community consensus. Publication of an Informational RFC does not.
Another possible path for LLMNR is for the DNSEXT WG to understand
the objections raised by the community, resolve those concerns (by
changing the document, educating the community or other means) and
present an updated document that will reach consensus in the
community for publication as a Proposed Standard.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf