Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)

Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> > We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
> > presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
>
> Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to 
> emphasize:
>    The concern I expressed had nothing at all to do with this.
>
> What prompted my note that in turn prompted Pete's was a form of 
> counter-productive LC behavior that I consider to be abusive and since 
> it was from a highly experienced participant, inexcusable.
> Serious questions and suggestions from serious reviewers/critics are 
> /essential/ to IETF quality assurance and I have as little patience for 
> the sneering you describe as anyone else.
> d/
My particular concern is that you using this "abusive" argument 
increasingly against people leading to a next public suggestion to 
justify invoking IETF moderation, if necessary.
Once a well respected senior member as yourself speaks as such, people 
do listen and its extremely intimidating to constantly see this 
threatening form of excommunications and moderation against folks.  If 
one responds, then they are risk of getting labeled abusive, and hence 
moderation is invoked.
In my opinion, I don't see highly debated issues like the SPF typ99e 
issue all the time with last calls. At least I don't or I don't get 
involved with it if its not related to my work.  This rarity suggest 
that the IETF LC system still works and that we are simply 
experiencing a real divided technical infrastructure design issue that 
was highly predictable to be a conflict outside the working group. 
Pete suggested as much with fewer cross area reviews occurring within 
the IETF.  I agree that this is one of those diversity improvements 
areas.  Not enough cross area peer review before the WGLC and IETF LC 
takes place.  The goal is to minimizes these contentious engineering 
issues.
I have been involved with the SPF protocol before MARID, during MARID, 
an early adopter and also involved in the SPFBIS efforts.  It is my 
assessment the SPFBIS WG
did not receive adequate cross area reviews and DNS industry input 
*before* the removal decision was made, which was practically 
immediate and expected before the first draft was even written. 
Instead, the same "already discussed" arguments was used and the 
removal decision was implemented in the draft.
In my opinion, there was significant concerns about the removal within 
the WG and outside the WG, yet the decision was made to pull it anyway 
at the IETF meeting.  This immediately put the burden on everyone to 
reverse or at least get a better discussion going about keeping the 
migration path and also get a better handle of whats going on with the 
dearth in the supportive infrastructure for the handling of unknown RR 
types.
In my opinion, it would be better to seek the input from DNS vendors 
to see what the future is regarding new RR types and passthru handling 
of unknown types (RFC 3597). I request reaching out to folks in 
Microsoft DNS product management to determine what has fell through 
the cracks.  If there is continued lack of interest, then the SPF 
type99 removal is reasonable to me.
You seem to think that this was already done. I don't think so. 
Perhaps you believe that the infrastructure will never be ready to 
support new RR types.  If so, that is important to know.
--
HLS