[ga-roots] FYI more on mDNS Protocol fuss on IETF Possion list :Re: mDNS needs something like this

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All,

  FYI: From Possion regarding mDNS or IETF DNSEXT WG 
flap over mDNS document for discussion....

==================My response included below ================

Bill and all,

  I agree wit Bills conclusion here.  I do not agree with how he arrived
at
it however.  If there is a document that may provide some insight to
possibly improving the DNSO protocol in any way is should at least
be reviewed as part of the WG process.  Whether or not ic can be
modified should not be a factor in any way.  Ergo, I find it difficult
that ANY such document should be thereby prohibited from discussion,
debate, and deliberation as to it's contents in a potential improvement
to the DNS protocol or any protocol for that matter....

  Therefore I can only logically conclude that this WG chair is acting
out
of some other motivation that is either unknown or has some other
problem
with the document in question.  IT would seem than that this WG chair
is acting, in either case inappropriately and should be replaced as
this WG chair without delay...

Bill Manning wrote:

>  this was not intended for standards track.  it was submitted for
>  possible inclusion as a WG item, decidedly on the experimental or
>  informational side of things.  since it was an indivdual
>  work, it carried the more restrictive covenent until such time
>  as the WG chairs (and the other worthies in the IAB/IESG/AD chain)
>  blest this idea as appropriate IETF fodder.  IF (and it turns
>  out to have been a big if) the WG was willing to consider the material
>  as a potential WG item, then there was a very high probability that
>  said boilerplate would change.  But we will never know since the
>  WG chair was instructed to reject any and all discussion of the topic.
>  So this particular bit of enhancement to the DNS protocol will
>  go undocumented by the IETF process, except in the archives of
>  WG mailing lists.
>
>  I don't think this was the indended outcome of the required boilerplate.
>
> %
> % Keith, we have a clear rule: 3 forms of I-D boilerplate, pick one, and if
> % you don't pick the first form your draft cannot be processed for
> % standards track because it doesn't conform to RFC 2026 requirements.
> % The author can submit it to the WG until everybody is blue in the
> % face, but the WG cannot do anything with it, so the document
> % reduces to a no-op. So why are any of us wasting cycles on a no-op?
> %
> % [namedroppers removed from the cc, since that is not a list I
> % want to be abused on...]
> %
> %    Brian
> %
> % Keith Moore wrote:
> % >
> % > > The above boilerplate is contradictory. On the one hand, the submitter
> % > > does not grant the IETF/WG any rights to excerpt text, modify it,
> % > > etc., as is the norm in IETF WGs. The only right granted is to publish
> % > > as an ID.  On the other hand, the above text says this document is a
> % > > submission to the WG. The WG shouldn't be accepting submissions that
> % > > it has no change control over. That is not the IETF way.
> % >
> % > I don't think that the document should claim to be an activity of the
> % > WG if the WG has not agreed to take it on.
> % >
> % > At the same time, I don't think an author should have to agree to give
> % > up change control of the document (i.e. part of the exclusive right to
> % > make derivative works that is given to the author under copyright law)
> % > unless and until the WG agrees to take it on.   In other words, an author
> % > should be able to submit a document to a WG and have that WG discuss
> % > *whether to take on the document as a work item*, without having to give
> % > up change control.
> % >
> % > This is a separate issue from whether it's appropriate for a WG list
> % > moderator to filter input about such documents.
> % >
> % > > Comments/disagreements on this would best be taken to poisson, as the
> % > > issues have nothing at all to do with the content of the document.
> % >
> % > I don't think poisson is in a position to discuss the question of whether
> % > the dnsext WG should take this document on as a work item.
> % >
> % > And while poisson might be the correct place to discuss general rules
> % > of operation for IETF WGs and their mailing lists, I do not think it is
> % > the place to discuss specific applications or interpretations of
> % > those rules.   Each WG should try to handle those by itself.  If the
> % > result is not satisfactory, that's why the appeals process exists.
> % >
> % > Keith
> %
>
> --
> --bill

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html