DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: Excluding inputs to the WG

All assembly members,

  FYI.  It would seem that the IETF as I had disagreed with
Harald on last week seems to be yet again in some turmoil
on procedural issues, and ones that seem to revolve around
DNS related issues.  Therefore I thought that sharing this
with the DNSO GA was of some importance and interest...

Robert Elz wrote:

> For poisson people - the message below (quoted in full, other than headers)
> appeared on he namedroppers list - the WG list for the dnsext WG...
>     Date:        Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:35:02 -0400
>     From:        Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
>     Message-ID:  <>
>   | [ ack -- rb ]
>   |
>   | At 09:04 AM 6/3/2001, Bill Manning wrote:-
>   | >                          The DISCOVER opcode
>   | >
>   | >This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance with
>   | >Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF with any
>   | >rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft. This document is a
>   | >submission to the domain name system extentions (DNSEXT) working group
>   | >of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Comments may be submitted
>   | >to the working group mailing list at "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" or the
>   | >author.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
>   |
>   |
>   | It has been pointed out to me that the above copyright is not in
>   | compliance with section 10 in RFC2026 thus no IETF working groups
>   | can consider this document.
>   |
>   | Moderators, please do not approve any messages related to this draft on
>   | namedroppers until the draft has been reissued with a copyright permitted
>   | under section 10 in RFC2026.
>   |
>   | This note does not reflect in any way on any technical merits of the
>   | document.
>   |
>   |          thanks
>   |          Olafur
>   |
>   |
>   |
>   | to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
>   | the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> This is sheer lunacy.   A WG can consider whatever documents it wants
> to, without restriction.   There is nothing whatever in any IETF procedures
> doc that in any way restricts the ability of a WG, or the whole IETF, from
> examining documents with any copyright (or other IP) status whatever.
> We do expect open disclosure of such things (which is what seems happened
> here), after that, it is entirely up to the WG (and later the IETF as a
> whole) to decide whether a doc should be considered, published, and if
> so, how.
> In general we're probably not going to publish as a standard anything that
> we (the IETF) don't get change control over - which means the ability to
> republish with whatever changes we see fit.
> But hat has to be a WG (and later, IETF) decision - not some arbitrary
> rule, and especially not a rule that straight out prohibits discussion
> of any input whatever.
> It is entirely possible that the idea in the doc presented may have been
> considered worthwhile to the dnsext WG, but that perhaps copyright restrictions
> on the doc may mean that the doc can't be used (the WG doesn't want to use
> it as is).   In that case, an entirely reasonable course of action would be
> to assign someone else to be doc editor, and to produce a new doc containing
> the same ideas (ideas can't be copyright, only their representation in words
> (or other forms not relevant here)).
> Or, assuming discussion is allowed to happen - the whole thing might just
> be written of as not worth further time.
> Or any oc countless other things - including convincing the doc author that
> the doc is something that the WG, and IETF, would like to continue with, but
> that to do that the IETF is going to need permission to republish with
> changes (the standard stuff).
> Insisting that everything be granted to the IETF (or ISOC) before it can
> be considered is exactly what this WG (poisson) rejected when the mandatory
> boilerplate stuff was considered - there are 3 allowable boilerplates for
> I-Ds - any of those is good enough to have an I-D published (the point being
> that they make the status of the doc clear for all to see), any of those is
> good enough for a WG to consider the ideas contained in the doc, and any
> is good enough for the IETF to consider publishing the doc.
> dnsext chairs - please undo this inane decision, and allow whatever discussion
> of the merits of the doc (and even of its copyright status) the WG desires
> to pursue.
> poisson - please let's all send a message to whoever it was who (apparently)
> acted in the background and pressured the dnsext chairs to take this
> action that such nefarious dealings with WG work is simply not acceptable.
> If whoever it was actually wanted the issue considered, then it should have
> been taken to the WG (or even poisson, or the IETF as a whole) for
> consideration - not by the means of whatever pressure was exerted on the
> WG chair(s) here, out of sight of the rest of the WG and IETF.
> kre
> ps: it would be an entirely different question if discussion of the doc was
> being excluded because it was outside the charter of the WG, or in some other
> way was inappropriate for the WG to waste time upon.


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@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>