Subject: RE: "trouble maker"

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:48:53 -0700

> The fact you failed to convience others of your proposal is not a 
> problem of IETF. Neither is the role of the chair or the IESG 
> to assist 
> you in that regard.
> 
> If you did not get rough consensus, you lose. Deal with it.

But there was consensus in favor of OPT IN, the chair decided to abuse his
position and ignore it subsituting his own opinion. Read the WG mailing
lists.

There was a last call, 12 people were in favor, 2 opposed outright, 7 were
not in favor but prepared to accept the proposal. 

Actually there were in total four last calls. Basically the Chair's strategy
was to keep asking the question until he could pretend the result was in his
favor.

So no, it was not about 'rough consensus' it was about 'Chair's perogative'.

> For your specific issues with DNSEXT, I am not sure how true 
> "WG was in 
> favour to fixing the spec" but you should deal with that in 
> the DNSEXT 
> or file an appeal to IESG if it is really true. Complaining here dont 
> help you in anyway.

I have no confidence in the IESG, why would I waste time on an
appeal there? All that would do would be to continue the uncertainty
for another year or so.

Once I realized that it was about chair's perogative and not 
consensus my strategy was simply to force the group to come to a
final decision. As long as the filibustering and procedural 
circumlocutions continued the choice was potentially between
the undeployable status quo, the OPTIN fix and potentially a
new fix that might be proposed, result stalemate that suited the
'kill DNSSEC in large zones' faction. After the chair exercised
perogative the choice is now two schemes, the one that cannot 
be deployed and the one that can, so in effect there is only one
scheme.

I'd rather take my appeal to the market, fork the spec and tell 
the press the reason why. Or given the fact that the IETF has
abdicated responsibility in this area take a completely fresh
DNS Security propoal to an open and democratic forum.

The IETF can choose to endorse arbitrary and partisan decision
making and even endorse a broken spec if it chooses, but don't
think the world is obliged to accept the resulting decision.

> For the wg chairs reaction to your company name, while I dont 
> think it 
> is appropriate, I dont see why it would prevent IETF to be open and 
> inclusive. 

You might not, but I suspect the rest of the world can.

		Phill

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 01:29:39 +0800

> position and ignore it subsituting his own opinion. Read the WG mailing

As I said, if you feel the wg chairs is wrong in the determination of 
the rough consensus, then you should appeal. The process to do so is 
stated in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.

 > think the world is obliged to accept the resulting decision.

It is your choice not to appeal and it is within your rights.

But this does not means there is a problem with IETF nor could I agree 
with your conclusion. How could there be a problem if you have not put 
it to a test?

-James Seng

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:06:48 -0400

> position and ignore it subsituting his own opinion. Read the WG mailing

Yes, everyone should read the mailing list and form their own opinion.

> not in favor but prepared to accept the proposal.

I note that you choose to interpret the 7, as the same as supporting,
or not actually being opposed. That is not consistent with what those
7 actually said, as they actually did say no. That results in a rather
different picture.

> Actually there were in total four last calls. Basically the Chair's
> strategy was to keep asking the question until he could pretend the
> result was in his favor.

Again, your interpretation of motive. It is not uncommon to have
multiple LCs on the same document, to make sure that it has recieved
adequate review and all the bugs are worked out. The ADs supported the
chairs on this. At the end of the process, the WG agreed that the
technical issues had been worked out and were understood, but there
was still no consensus with going forward with the solution.

Thomas