Mr. Resnick, for the record, I wasn't upset. Believe it or not, I was
actually applying an suggestion posted last month or so here with the
IETF diversity talks to help get a major WG issue resolved, one with a
near surety of an appeal, resolved and addressed much faster and hence
avoid a waste of time on the behalf of all.
How appropo, that a topic of "balancing of process" as being considered.
It is one thing I believe the IETF needs and can be actually apply
today. Yes, I don't agree with the negative tone taken in SPFBIS where
in effect, an attempt to shut down communications and indirectly
personally attack posters occurred and the advocates of the SPF RRTYPE
removal (incidentally, a SPEC change which I believe was prohibited by
the charter), basically blowing off advocates of a RFC4408 status quo.
If you believe that was proper, I think we have a WG problem.
Overall, I believe this (keep the migration path) is the proper
compromise to resolve the issue, and I believe that this particular
issue is industry-wide important to resolve with across the board
engineering input. It *SHOULD NOT* be reserved only to the applications
SPFBIS group especially when we know what the DNS community will say
about this and has said so since MARID 2003 and again last year in IETF
and DNSOPs. I was simply hoping to help "Balance the process" then as I
was attempted to do again. If I was in error for trying to get a
serious issue resolve, then please accept my apology.
Sincerely,
Hector Santos
On 5/1/2013 9:44 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 4/30/13 7:45 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
So my personal opinion is that this is a valid discussion to be having
even if we're having it again in IETF LC.
Folks,
This document is *not* in IETF LC. A particular WG member, who was
apparently upset with the tone of the argument on the SPFBIS and DNSEXT
list, expressed his upset by cross-posting to the IETF list, claiming
this had something to do with the "IETF Diversity" topic.
Then a bunch of other SPFBIS and DNSEXT folks blindly used "Reply-All",
resulting in us all seeing this discussion.
I will leave it to the chairs/sergeants-of-arms of the respective lists
to decide how they want to deal with this, but personally I think this
discussion is not useful to have on the IETF list at the moment and
suggest that folks be more careful of their use of "Reply-All". I also
suggest that cross-posting to a new list without noting that in the body
of the message is bad netiquette.
pr