It's a question of the model.
The people making the non-comments on the draft are the people that one would
expect to have the expertise to resolve the issues which are sufficiently
detailed and DNS specific that it is not reasonable to expect the IESG to
decide them.
It is reasonable to comment that the document should be marked experimental
rather than informational. It would be reasonable to say that what the document
describes might become a de-facto standard even though nobody intends this and
that WG review is therefore approriate.
The objection 'there might be an inconsistency here' is always applicable. It
certainly applies to the vast majority of standards regardless of source. It is
therefore an information-free comment.
I agree with Olaf's suggestion that there be an action on the document author
to add a section explaining the relationship of the draft to existing
experimental practice. It seems to me that this is entirely appropriate in a
document marked 'experimental'. I don't think that it is appropriate for the
IESG to be tasked with evaluating the quality of this work.
My point here is that the IESG should not accept responsibility for ensuring
that specifications do not fail.
Instead I believe that the IESG should make it very clear that responsibility
lies with the working groups and not attempt to save the WGs from the
consequences of their own folly except in rare circumstances. Those being that
there is a clearly identified flaw in a proposal that has potential to damage
the wider Internet, or that there is a procedural irregularity in the WG itself.
The main job of the IESG should be to protect WGs from the folly of other WGs.
There being enough of that to make a full time occupation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley(_at_)ca(_dot_)afilias(_dot_)info]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: John C Klensin; Geoff Huston; Bernard Aboba; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)'
to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv)
On 30-Oct-2006, at 11:38, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
When the statement is "I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec-
dlv-01 with the ISC tech note closely, but since the text
is different
it seems likely that implementations based on one would
likely differ
from those" it should go straight to the bit bucket.
OK. The two documents have a common heritage (as the
respective acknowledgements sections indicate) but it's not
clear from either document whether they describe precisely
the same thing as the other.
I have read both documents and have noted the lack of text in
either of them which would clarify this issue.
If they describe the same thing, then hooray, but let them
say so rather than requiring people to infer things from their titles.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf