Subject: [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon)

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:56:41 -0500

Dear colleagues,

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:08:54PM -0500, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> If I recall correctly, there was significant support for
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode
> In fact, looking back, there was a WG Last Call issued on this draft
> on April 13th of this year with favorable responses.
> 
> Can this be advanced?

I was remiss in not following up after that WGLC, and I apologise.

I am unhappy to say that the WGLC did not achieve the required 5
reviews.  I find only four reviews (all of them positive) during the
period.  Moreover, I do not find other reviews, outside the period of
the WGLC, that supported the draft either.  Therefore, the draft will
not advance as a product of the working group. 

Speaking only personally, I will state that I think this is a shame: I
believe the draft is useful, I believe what it says ought to be
uncontroversial, and I believe it ought to be published as an RFC.
But with a chair hat on, I cannot in good conscience report to the
IESG that we have WG consensus when we can't even get five people to
read nine pages of text, four of which are boilerplate, and say that
they support it.  I thank Donald for producing the draft, and those
who contributed their reviews.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:21:12 -0500

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:01:19PM -0800, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> I have just reviewed this document, and I support it advancing for publication as-is.
> 
> Does that help?

I see no reason to be bureaucratic and hide-bound: sure it helps.
I'll start on the write up.

Best,

A

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:14:04 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] disposition of draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-05 (was: DNSEXT closing down soon)
> 

I've read it and I support its publication as well.  I have some edits to propose, which I can contribute as part of a formal AppsDir review if you like since they are not major.

Are you planning to make this a WG document or send it through under its current name?

-MSK

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:34:34 -0500

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:14:04PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>  I've read it and I support its publication as well.  I have some
> edits to propose, which I can contribute as part of a formal AppsDir
> review if you like since they are not major.

I think it's as well to send this as part of that review, if you don't
mind, just so that we can get this document moving.

> Are you planning to make this a WG document or send it through under

I was going to ship it as is as the product of the WG, but your remark
made me realise that there's a bureaucratic snafu that results in that
case.  So it'll have to get a name change.  Sigh.  I'll get Donald to
submit it with the changed name, but it will otherwise be exactly the
same as passed WGLC.

Thanks for tweaking me on this, it was a silly mistake to make.

A

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:46:15 -0800

> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]

OK, I'll watch for the WG version and do a review based on it.

(Cc'ing SM so he can schedule the AppsDir assignment accordingly.)

-MSK