Re: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

I would like this to be the last discussion on this prior an IESG
action/reponse on this.  (I appologize in advance for being testy about
this.)

First - why is there a second draft.

On Jan 17th or so, I was talking to an IESG member at a workshop and found
out that the IESG hadn't seen the charter yet.  The following day was a
one-week- before-meeting deadline to have IESG members submit items for
discussion at the next meeting.  As a result of this I pinged Patrik about
our charter.  I also mentioned that some other feedback I received
questioning the mention of drafts and coverage about security.  I promised
Patrik an alternate charter in case it was needed.

Once I got to a place where I could work and get net access (a few days
later), I made three changes - one to remove the mention of the drafts by
name, one to put "extensibility" in to the charter, and one to beef up the
security.  I wanted to get this to Patrik in time for the IESG meeting.  At
that point there wasn't time to get mail list comments on what I consider
three small changes.  (Please don't reply to complain that I shouldn't just
go on my considerations - evidently the inclusion/exclusion of the names of
the drafts is a big deal to some.)

I sent the second charter to Patrik (and copied Jaap).  The next thing I
see is the first charter on ietf-announce.  I haven't heard directly from
Patrik on this, it is possible he has already thrown out the second
charter.  I don't know.  At worst, he has both.

Second - what's next.

It's in the IESG's hands.  I've gotten no indications about the next step.
When I know, the mail list will know.

Third - why I'm tiring on this.

I've spent quite a few hours on email this weekend just on this topic.  I
fail to see how this discussion is helping us get to the protocol.

We already have a requirements document that seems to satisfy list
participants.  If we were a WG, then it would be in last call by now - but
we are not a WG.

There are two items now for us.  One is to start consideration of the
protocol.  The other is to make sure we have as wide-spread consensus as we
can get.

At 10:47 AM -0500 2/5/01, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>Ed,
>
>Responding to several of your issues raised over the weekend:
>
>> The charter mentions DNS administration to set the context of the work, it
>> itself is not a work item.
>
>This is what I assumed.
>
>> The reason I removed the mention of the draft is that we are not here to
>> bless a particular protocol generated outside the working group, but rather
>> to generate a protocol in full view of the IETF.
>
>I see two issues here -- agency and process.
>
>Agency -- The draft charter shows two co-chairs, Ed and Jaap. Was this
>change of draft charter discussed by both? The draft charter was discussed
>at San Diego and references to Scott's prior drafts were present then, and
>not remarkable. What changed?
>
>Process -- This has been covered by others, unlike another activity for
>which a NDA existed, Scott's drafts have been in full public view.
>
>> Right now I am basically waiting for feedback from the IESG.
>
>The scope of IESG review is limited, as is its effect. I'll crawl out on a
>limb and _predict_ the IESG reviewer(s) won't:
>	a) require folding whois and provreg (despite the superficial
>	   appearence of common underlying data and access mechanisms),
>	b) require an ab initio folding of DNS provreg with other possible
>	   provregs, (despite the superficial appearence of common underlying
>	   data types and access mechanisms), and
>	c) require cosmetic rewriting of self-evident existing requirements.
>
>Cheers,
>Eric


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.