Dear colleagues, As Pauls (Vixie and Hoffman) already reminded the room, and it seems wise to remind the lists:
Some internet-drafts are cited in the agenda as central to the planned workshop discussion. Some of these drafts are written by regular contributors to DNSOP, and two have been discussed in the WG. One has been adopted in the WG, and the authors have announced the intention to seek WG adoption for another. Other contributors to the WG will be part of the discussion in the Hong Kong workshop. Informed review, discussion, and analysis of these drafts can only be good. If there's useful insight from the Hong Kong workshop, we hope it will be brought into DNSOP as part of the process. In the interest of making sure such input can be effectively considered, we're reminding contributors of a few points about IETF processes for discussion and decision on documents such as these internet-drafts. ***This workshop is not an official meeting of the DNSOP WG, or a meeting to provide formal input to the IETF. The IETF requires that a WG meeting be run under certain rules, including: proper notice given; facilities for remote participation available; the IETF "Note Well" on open contribution posted. This meeting is, instead, an opportunity for extended discussion that may result in input to the WG.*** 1. Comments made or questions raised in an independent meeting become input to the IETF process only when someone submits them openly as such. This can be done by discussion on the mailing list, or in a face-to-face session at an IETF meeting, or in an official interim WG meeting. The fact that the documents are internet-drafts does not mean that discussion on them is input to the IETF. Having people who have official roles in the IETF (WG chairs, IAB members, document authors/editors) in the room does not make discussion there input to the DNSOP (or any other) WG. 2. WG decisions on the content of WG documents are by consensus of the WG. There's a significant amount of guidance on how WG chairs are to judge consensus, but it has to include the records of open discussion and review on the mailing list or in regular or interim WG meetings. 3. Because of the consensus decision requirement, internet-drafts aren't official IETF documents until there's consensus to work on them, and working group documents become RFCs only with consensus in the WG to advance them. Discussion of an internet-draft in DNSOP doesn't mean the WG will adopt it for further work, and adoption of a draft by the WG isn't a promise it will be published as an RFC. People who participate in this meeting may indeed want to submit their comments/statements/assessments to the IETF process after the meeting. We hope they will, and we're happy to provide any desired detail or clarification on how to do so for anyone not familiar with the mechanics. best, Suzanne & Tim DNSOP WG co-chairs On Dec 7, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote: > we're starting shortly. > > live broadcast: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr9StRxasHc > > agenda: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ssXQE5gGoWC93oFHquY2oZL4pDOv1bPDVjPoGYGdeSs > > jabber room: > > xmpp:[email protected] > > the presentations will be put on youtube for later watching, for those > now sleeping. > > -- > Paul Vixie > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
