Hi Tobias, Thanks for providing a detailed history.
> On Jan 18, 2026, at 11:51 PM, Tobias Fiebig <[email protected]> wrote: > > Good Morning, > please excuse my belated reply to the comments of the the last days. I > will also reply to the contents of the other two messages later today. > > However, I also believe that we need to talk about an elephant in the > room concerning the two concerns voiced about missing consideration of > Geoff's two reviews. Please understand that I make below comments as an > individual to further contextualize these concerns. Opinions and > conclusions stated are my own and have not been coordinated with my co- > editors, chairs, or our area director. > >> I am not a DNS expert, but I have to agree with Paul on his DISCUSS >> on seeming contradictions in the recommendations. Much like Paul, I >> am intrigued why there has been no response beyond acknowledgement of >> Geoff Houston’s two DNSDIR reviews. > > After WGLC, in which Geoff did not participate, Geoff was assigned as a > reviewer by himself in his role as DNSDIR director and conducted a > DNSDIR review of the document: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/25qhHg96-Sw3otx-B6ANM7xAPTY/ Thanks also for the pointer. I was looking at the following link captured by the datatracker when Geoff performed his review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/OQ9jHAUx_w4uynAQ2Al4DDo5Czc/ That pointer led to a single response from Jim Reid, and my impression that his review had not been responded to. I wonder why we have two different mail threads for the same review (you do not have to answer that, as that is a question for the tools team), other than the fact that the above link points to a post in dnsdir, while your link points to a post in dnsop. > > This first review received a detailed response by us, including five > PRs and several follow up questions, especially concerning points where > text contributed to the discussion in response to the reviewers earlier > requests in the WG was concerned: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uwk2YrprOAv_5HU8vso5smsHr14/ Looking at this thread, I am convinced that the authors did respond to the DNSDIR review in fair amount of detail. I will also note that the chairs have called rough consensus on the technical points of discussion. > > There was no further feedback on the document. However, on only > acknowledged points, a WG member expressed their agreement to the > feedback provided to the review, noting again that this is the result > of WG consensus. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R8QDGT1P_GH4ORKQPqgUtVqCfYI/ > > Geoff, in return, noted that he would not engage in the conversation on > the contents of the provided review. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BZfdSHnpF-DSTeTA-Zd29yOtxCM/ > > He also notes that: > > """ > It appears to me that _as an Informational RFC_, this draft is as ready > as it will ever be, and its a fine document. As a BCP, however, it is > Not Ready in my view, as it strays beyond the role of a BCP. > """ > > This, at least to me, creates the impression that the contents are, at > that point, ready. Instead, only a meta-question on the nature of the > document remains, which needs to be discussed and resolved. That is correct. With rough consensus having been established, the only question left in my mind is the type of document. I agree with Paul that the document might be reaching beyond its remit. I do not want to stand in the way of others who might want to see this document published as is, and will therefore ballot abstain on it. Cheers. > > These concerns were then acknowledged, clarifying the role of BCPs: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/e8j4ZUkXQMO7jEWzM20IUo0m7d0/ > > However, this clarification seems to not have been convincing in the > context of the discussion: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4eduaYxsV89Y78z7DTk92PxBozU/ > > Which, in turn lead to further clarification: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pXfyuyJ-7NrM9X-nbVI8L97IC9k/ > > After this clarification, the discussion on this first review stopped. > As no further feedback from the reviewer was received on the PRs, these > have been merged and are present in -10. > > > > When the document progressed further, a telechat review was added: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/50QWxwtDE2fG6yygbs5ROy36GDw/ > > This review reiterated some points from the earlier DNSDIR IETF-LC > review, i.e., apparently points were not addressed to the reviewer's > satisfaction. Again, a response, along with three PRs, was provided: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sp57Z4CBzcOkBHbgCcFaqvFzhRk/ > > Engagement to this response was, again, limited, in the form of a > request to post the diffs to the mailinglist as well: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JFU_CCpjyD5vHsI0EI8preNQb6Q/ > > After posting the diffs, no further engagement was seen, and as such, > the PRs have not yet been merged. > > > > With this turn of events, it personally strikes me as somewhat odd, to > now--for the third time--hear that there was no engagement with the > provided reviews from our side. > > > > Given the history of the document, I am concerned that there may be > more than technical contents at play here, leaving me uncertain whether > the discussion always runs within the bounds of the note-well. While I > personally prefer not to stray to those matters, at this point, I think > that it might be beneficial to the process if we at least openly > discuss them. > > As stated before, there seems to be a very specific perspective on the > merits of the draft. This has been accompanying the document from the > first time it has been presented, where it was met with an ad hominem > to start: > > https://youtu.be/AhLrHoFL2lw?t=6025 > > The individual nature of the objection was also recognized by others, > see, e.g.: > > """ > Geoff Houston was in not favour of the proposal, but found himself in > the minority. After IETF 118, Geoff therefore wrote a blog on the > subject. > """ > > https://www.sidnlabs.nl/downloads/iMiufCFWoTVkikn1NrUSk/35fd7436c731e2bd9f9f0e7e62e5b015/CENTR_Report_on_IETF118.pd > > Furthermore, there was a set of blog posts engaging with the topic, and > why the editors are wrong, while the document was seemingly not > included in the DNSOP summary of IETF118 posted in the same series: > > https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2023-11/dns-ipv6.html > https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2023-11/dns-ietf118.html > https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2024-02/truncation.html > https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2024-03/truncation-v6.html > https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2024-07/truncation.html > > Beyond that, during that time, there were also several talks focusing > on, in my opinion, ridiculing the editors of this document, see for > example: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhm1ZD3xPY > > 00:09: "by now we've thrown facts out of the window and gone for > religious zealotry" > 00:46: "[...] 'someone' is proposing in the IETF to actually reverse > that and actually say 'here is some v6 guidelines use it take it > seriously we recommend that you put v6 absolutely everywhere and > the real question in my mind is 'is this sane advice or are you > demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of how shocking is v6 over > actually doing the bits of DNS that matter' because the problem > is v6 really does have a problem." > 07:32: " 'Let's go for an experiment and do v6 only says some Zealot > out there' and it's kind of 'do you really hate your > customers?' " > 14:04: "Let's change the DNS completely. I like your drugs. It's not > reality. But i love your drugs." > > While this person-focused discussion was ongoing, there was a brief > flare of discussion on the WG mailing list, leading to, among other > things, the inclusion of text initially requested by Geoff, to which he > then subsequently objected in the review, see, e.g.,: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R8QDGT1P_GH4ORKQPqgUtVqCfYI/ > > After that, the document was effectively stale, and it did not get to a > point where a call for working group adoption was scheduled. > > In the meantime, the editors designed and executed experiments to > better understand the voiced claims on challenges with IPv6 and the > negative impact of fragmentation. > > This work has, by now, been published: > > https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3730567.3764439 > > After data from this work was presented to the WG, the discussion > around the draft also finally progressed, and a call for adoption was > scheduled. > > During the adoption call, Geoff took a strong stance against the > document on principle again. However, the chairs ultimately concluded > on rough consensus having been achieved, leading to adoption. > > During the WG discussion phase, Geoff then did not deeply engage with > the document and in the discussions around it. > > > > With all of this said, I find myself in a difficult position to always > find charitable and constructive interpretations for observed events. I > understand that this is likely easier from a different perspective. > > However, I am, personally, convinced that the changes we implemented go > beyond merely acknowledging feedback from the two reviews, i.e., we > already merged five PRs for -10 based on the first review, with three > more pending--again missing--feedback. > > Of course, we would still be very much happy to integrate further > feedback, if we receive it in response to on our posted proposed > changes. > > > > I hope that this summary sufficiently contextualizes the circumstances > around the reviews, and why--despite us having implemented significant > changes--an impression of us not engaging with them may have emerged. > > If you have any further questions on this, I would be very much happy > to further discuss them. > > With best regards, > Tobias > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig > T +31 616 80 98 99 > M [email protected] > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
