Subject: Re: What are the opt-in issues

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 12:52:39 -0700

Randy,

On 6/8/02 9:01 PM, "Randy Bush" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Contrary to Randy's opinion,
>> namedroppers doesn't have to only be about politics.
> and your message and most of this thread are such shining examples
> thereof.

At least we can always count on you to bring either the match or the extra
gasoline.

> i don't think anyone but the paranoid have said that opt-in has
> been killed, let alone that it was killed by "a group of people
> meeting alone in secret."

Then it would appear comments I received from three independent sources to
the effect that opt-in was already dead were mistaken.  How reassuring.

> you might reread my original response to matt
> <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg00723.html>
> and my consistent responses thereafter

"We're from the DNS Directorate, we're here to help".  As I mentioned
previously, raising the issues the directorate has with opt-in on the public
mailing list could be helpful in exploring whether the issues are sufficient
to kill opt-in.  Why not be open?

> before hyperventilating and
> indulging in black helicopter fantasies.

Speaking of shining examples, thanks for being so concerned about my health,
both mental and physical.  Let me reassure you that I have neither been
hyperventilating nor have my fantasies involved black helicopters.  I do
have this fantasy about open and transparent standards processes, but that
would, of course, be for another mailing list...

Rgds,
-drc

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 14:21:18 -0700

Folks,

My reading of this protracted thread is that there are two, very different 
issues.  One is technical and one is process.

Technical:

         A range of difficult alternatives has been developed and debated 
at length and ad nauseam.  My 50,000 foot scan of the list suggests opt-in 
won.  If the actual rough consensus is different or unclear, then 
fine.  That becomes a clear (and oddly straightforward) point to resolve.

         When there is a rough consensus, the last-minute roadblock that is 
always valid is "It won't work" as long as the roadblock is based on 
legitimate details.  More often, this objection is raised using old 
material that is well-understood.  Hence it is just a way to cause delay.

         It does not sound as if there are fresh insights to opt-in.  If 
indeed there ARE fresh insights, I haven't noticed their being posted.

         To the casual reader, therefore, the technical situation appears 
to be that lengthy, diligent, technically competent debate has produced 
alternatives that each suffer from some difficult and even unsatisfying 
trade-offs.  However, these alternatives are coupled with a strong desire 
to get resolution, leading to a rough consensus for opt-in.

                 Would the working group chair please correct any details
                 of this summary that are incorrect?

Process:

         Difficult topics often benefit from having consultation by a small 
group of experts.  The role of directorates in the IETF is lengthy, as 
Marshall has noted.  The idea that prviate discussion groups may not be 
formed is silly enough that it surely is not what anyone is 
suggesting.  The idea that a working group chair or an AD is to be 
prohibited from getting advice from such a group is equally silly.

         And of course the idea that such a group is given decision-making 
authority is also quite silly, given the IETF culture.  No working group 
chair or AD would claim to have done such a thing.  Were they to try, it 
would be an obvious basis for an immediate process appeal.

         What seems more likely -- and what fits IETF history better -- is 
that the relevant managers -- working group chair and/or AD -- have 
either  communicated the role of that advice incorrectly or have used such 
advice incorrectly.  The former is trivial to fix.  The latter is pretty 
serious.

         One might claim that the relevant managers have already posted 
clarifications on this matter.  To the extent that folks making objections 
are not satisfied with the response, I'll can't tell why, from the messages 
posted about this.

So:

                 I strongly suggest folks separate these lines of
                 discussion.

                 I equally strongly suggest that folks clarify exactly
                 what problem(s) they claim are present and pursue fixing
                 them in the usual ways done in the IETF.

         At the moment, the discussions are sufficiently laced with heat to 
prevent much other than more heat.  Near as I can tell, all of the folks 
causing and reacting to the heat are trying to do the right thing.  That 
they might not be succeeding does not reduce the seriousness of their intent.

d/