Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' toProposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: "Russ Allbery" <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

<deleted down to>

On the other hand, the DNSEXT WG has worked for several years to produce
the LLMNR specification, and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong
with the mechanism that we have produced (people should respond to the
IETF LC if they see blocking technical issues). The authors of that
specification gave change control to the IETF community, and they have
gone through 40+ document iterations, working towards a document that
would achieve DNSEXT consensus.  That process was not followed for mDNS
(because it was not the chosen solution), and we currently only have one
document (LLMNR) that has reached IETF WG consensus and has been
submitted for standards publication.

As near as I can tell, the authors of the mDNS specification also gave
change control to the IETF community, so I wouldn't raise that as a
distinction.  The only distinction appears to be working group consensus;
the protocols otherwise look to be in the same place legally and
process-wise.

One other minor point here, that should probably migrate to Newtrk pretty quickly if anyone wants to chat about it...

I'm getting an uneasy feeling here about a comparison between a working group internet-draft and a non-working group internet-draft, as if that was interesting.

If our process had anything to say about what it means for a draft to be adopted by a working group, in terms of the quality standard it's being held to, or the reviews that have been conducted, or anything similar, this would be a very reasonable distinction, but our process says very little about any of this stuff - so saying "my draft is a working group draft" (or, even worse, "a working group draft on the standards track") isn't helpful at all.

Often our processes are fuzzy for a reason, so I'm not saying we should "require three out-of-working-group independent reviews before an internet-draft can be adopted by a working group", or anything like that. I'm just saying that we shouldn't say things that sound like we DO have specific criteria that some internet-drafts meet and become working group drafts.

Spencer

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]