Hiya,
On 08/06/2021 14:55, Daniel Migault wrote:
I disagree that discussing whether the proposal will take over DDNSis a side discussion that unfortunately happens at a bad time.
Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
If I interpret the WGLC report, it is clearly noted as a lack of support.
No. It's me being critical of the text. I neither support nor oppose this stuff, but the arguments presented for that part aren't convincing IMO, which is what my comment said.
Predictions are not a technical discussion and can be very wrong ( "we will never make a 32 bit operating system", "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"... the list can be as long as we wish). It should not be considered in the decision to move the document forward. Will it replace DDNS - I do not know. Not more than Stephen or Juliusz. I am happy to have this discussion in 2 years. Today it gives a toxic tone to the discussion.
Toxic? That's seems quite overblown. And plain wrong, if you mean it to describe my review. I can understand the frustration of working on something like this and not seeing it progress as planned, but accusing me of creating toxicity is not a fair accusation for you to make.
I agree that more reviews is always preferred, but I am wondering how many reviews would have been considered sufficient.
Oh come on - we've tried a number of times to get people to review these documents and we've never really gotten that to happen. The level of review is nowhere near sufficient to declare some meaningful WG consensus.
Looking at the homenet mailing list we can see that the number of reviews reflects the participation of the mailing list.
That's true. I think it may be time to recognise reality and close the WG perhaps.
Though I really value your review, I am not sure that (even with no hat) it encourages additional reviews, as it forces the potential reviewer to take position against the opinion of the chair. It seems to me that, if the number of reviews were an issue, this could have been addressed otherwise.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. As chair I wouldn't ask for it to be published without doing my own personal review. And I refuse to guarantee all such reviews will be positive.
From my perspective all comments have been responded to, and technicalcomments have been addressed.
Personally, I don't agree. As chair, I think it's moot, as we don't have sufficient review to declare consensus either way. (To be clear - the DDNS point is also moot in terms of whether or not the technical comments have been handled - that was a non-nit editorial point.)
Regarding the support, the proposal was initiated by an ISP. Today, I am interested in this proposal because we have some demand for it. That some folks prefer using DDNS for their own purpose is orthogonal to us. This is why we want it to be published.
Sure, and as I said I'm not opposed to that. I suspect the best thing is for the authors to chat with our AD and see if he's either willing to AD-sponsor it, or to ask another WG to adopt, or try find a dispatch-like process to see if enough interest/review can be found that way. Cheers, S.
Yours, Daniel On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 6:06 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote:Hiya, On 08/06/2021 10:29, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote:Just trying to understand this hurdle/ line of reasoning. So in addition to achieving "rough consensus", the IETF standardization process must also produce drafts that are very likely to gain traction to displace non-IETF non-standardised products that are already widely commercially deployed?No. This is not a process hurdle. It was one amongst a bunch of personal comments I sent. And that I'm happy to discuss with the authors without wearing any chair or other hat. The process problem with these drafts is the lack of review means there's no way to claim they represent any useful level of WG consensus. Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ homenet mailinglist [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
