one more effort on the NTIA response
Colleagues, I am sorry to say that we have still not reached consensus on the proposed response to the NTIA NoI. After discussing this yesterday the WG co-chairs felt that further work is needed. We have also had reliable feedback that Friday's draft was being misinterpreted by some of the likely audience for this response outside the WG. I have taken guidance from an informal editing group to tweak the response to clear up the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding. So we now have an updated draft response to consider. The intention is still to try and get consensus in the WG, ideally on the text below. If that can be achieved in the next few days, we will then endeavour to get consensus from the RIPE community. And if that is done, the agreed text will go to NTIA as a statement of the RIPE community. The NTIA deadline makes this a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, there's little time left for further discussion. On the other, there needs to be reasonable discussion time in both the WG and RIPE lists so that the validity of our procedures are not undermined. Please bear this in mind before commenting about the latest draft on the list. Please take a look at the latest revised version below. As before, I would ask you to only comment about any matters that you consider to be showstoppers and provide suggested alternate text. Please try not to focus on minor tweaks to the language as that will divert us all from the matter at hand. And take time we don't really have to spare. Remember too that we're trying to get consensus within the WG. This is hard because there are differing views about how the root could or should be signed. There may be wording in the text below that is not to your personal taste. And other WG members may well be uncomfortable with the stuff in the draft that you like. However I hope we can all agree the latest draft is a fair reflection of the collective view of the WG. Some compromise and good sense from all of us is needed to keep this thing on track. Don't forget that what we're doing here is expressing the view of the WG (or the RIPE community?) *as a whole*. This does not prevent any of you from making your own personal or professional representations to the NTIA, something I encourage all of you to do. If some of the detail is not to your personal taste, please think carefully about whether it's better to handle that inside the WG in the time available or by making a personal submission to NTIA. So unless there's something in the draft below that you think makes us look bad/stupid/ wrong, can I ask for your support on this latest version? Oh, and if you are happy with the latest draft, please say so on the list. Your WG co-chairs will feel a lot more comfortable declaring consensus when there are positive statements to that effect on the list. This is far better than presuming a default of silence implies consent. # # $Id: ntia-draft,v 1.8 2008/11/09 17:28:20 jim Exp $ # The RIPE community (or DNS WG?) thanks the NTIA for its consultation on proposals to sign the root and is pleased to offer the following response to that consultation. We urge the adoption of a solution that leads to the prompt introduction of a signed root zone. Our community considers the introduction of a signed root zone to be an essential enabling step towards widespread deployment of Secure DNS, DNSSEC. It is to be expected that a community as diverse as RIPE cannot have a unified set of detailed answers to the NTIA questionnaire. However several members of the RIPE community will be individually responding to that questionnaire. We present the following statement as the consensus view of our community (or the DNS Working Group?) about the principles that should form the basis of the introduction of a signed DNS root. 1. Secure DNS, DNSSEC, is about data authenticity and integrity and not about control. 2. The introduction of DNSSEC to the root zone must be made in such a way that it is accepted as a global initiative. 3. Addition of DNSSEC to the root zone must be done in a way that does not compromise the security and stability of the Domain Name System. 4. When balancing the various concerns about signing the root zone, the approach must provide an appropriate level of trust and confidence by offering an optimally secure solution. 5. Deployment of a signed root should be done in a timely but not hasty manner. 6. Updates from TLD operators relating to DNSSEC should be aligned with the operational mechanisms for co-ordinating changes to the root zone. 7. If any procedural changes are introduced by the deployment of DNSSEC they should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the roles and processes as well as the entities holding those roles to be changed after suitable consultations have taken place. 8. Policies and processes for signing the root zone must be transparent and trustworthy, making it straightforward for TLDs to supply keys and credentials so the delegations for those TLDs can benefit from a common DNSSEC trust anchor, the signed root. 9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root. 10. No data should be moved between organisations without appropriate authenticity and integrity checking, particularly the flow of keying material between a TLD operator and the entity that signs the root. 11. The public part of the key signing key must be distributed as widely as possible. 12. The organisation that generates the root zone file must sign the file and therefore hold the private part of the zone signing key. 13. Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process must not necessarily require a change of keys.
Hi Jim, The latest draft is fine AFAIAC. Count me as +1 -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
Yes, I have been helping with the text, but I still explicitly want to say I support the text as proposed by Jim. Patrik
Yes, I fully support this text as a RIPE community reply to the NTIA questions. Rob
Jim- Latest draft is much clearer, I believe even for bureaucrats. Count me as +1. -Rick
Hi Jim,
Oh, and if you are happy with the latest draft, please say so on the list. Your WG co-chairs will feel a lot more comfortable declaring consensus when there are positive statements to that effect on the list. This is far better than presuming a default of silence implies consent.
I am happy with the latest draft as sent to the list on November 10th 2008. Sander
At 8:57 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
can I ask for your support on this latest version?
I'd be okay with this, in general, except for two things. #1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to add an organization?) #2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not critical.
9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
Ed, I believe 9 addresses some of the proposed workflows published with the NOI. It was not in either the VeriSign or ICANN proposals, but was, I believe, in some of the other diagrams. -Barb On 11/10/08 10:17 AM, "Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> wrote: At 8:57 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
can I ask for your support on this latest version?
I'd be okay with this, in general, except for two things. #1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to add an organization?) #2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not critical.
9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
In that case, I'll modify my statement to "I'd be happier if #9 was less obtuse (that is, happier if it's intent was more direct or clear). At 10:33 -0800 11/10/08, Barbara Roseman wrote: Ed, I believe 9 addresses some of the proposed workflows published with the NOI. It was not in either the VeriSign or ICANN proposals, but was, I believe, in some of the other diagrams. -Barb On 11/10/08 10:17 AM, "Edward Lewis" <<>Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> wrote: At 8:57 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
can I ask for your support on this latest version?
I'd be okay with this, in general, except for two things. #1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to add an organization?) #2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not critical.
9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
Correct, that is the reason why #9 is there. Patrik On 10 nov 2008, at 19.33, Barbara Roseman wrote:
Ed, I believe 9 addresses some of the proposed workflows published with the NOI. It was not in either the VeriSign or ICANN proposals, but was, I believe, in some of the other diagrams.
-Barb
On 11/10/08 10:17 AM, "Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> wrote:
At 8:57 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
can I ask for your support on this latest version?
I'd be okay with this, in general, except for two things.
#1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to add an organization?)
#2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not critical.
9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar
Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
On Nov 10, 2008, at 18:17, Edward Lewis wrote:
#1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to add an organization?)
Ed, aside from the points that have already been explained to you, point 9 counteracts arguments that are likely to be made in other circles to establish/introduce some other entity to oversee the signing of the root. If/when those groups make that claim, there would be at least one emphatic statement from the Internet community refuting it.
#2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not critical.
Well please re-read my introductory notes on the latest draft. The WG does not have a common view of how to sign the root. At least that what the mood seemed to be in Dubai. This is why we've tried to focus on requirements (where we can agree hopefully) than operational detail (where there are divergent opinions). If you want to debate operational details, go ahead. But please don't do that in a way that stops the WG from formulating a response to NTIA. Or you could present those technical details in your own response to the NTIA NoI.
At 22:52 +0000 11/10/08, Jim Reid wrote:
On Nov 10, 2008, at 18:17, Edward Lewis wrote:
#1 - I'd be happier without 9 - I mean, just delete it. (Why is it there? Did someone believe there was a technical justification to add an organization?)
Ed, aside from the points that have already been explained to you, point 9 counteracts arguments that are likely to be made in other circles to establish/introduce some other entity to oversee the signing of the root. If/when those groups make that claim, there would be at least one emphatic statement from the Internet community refuting it.
How about "While there may be reasons supporting the creation or introduction of another organization in the process of signing the root zone, the reasons are not technical in nature." I just think, judging from my reactions to #9, that the wording is not clearly getting the intention across.
#2 - I'd be happier if the list wasn't just a set of requirements but included some "here's a way to do it"s. But then, this point is not critical.
Well please re-read my introductory notes on the latest draft. The WG does not have a common view of how to sign the root. At least that what the mood seemed to be in Dubai.
Perhaps therein lies the issue - I wasn't in Dubai. ;) Meaning, all I have to go on is what was posted to the mailing list, not any background discussion.
This is why we've tried to focus on requirements (where we can agree hopefully) than operational detail (where there are divergent opinions).
This should be in the preamble then. There's no problem with just sticking to requirements, but I was *expecting* that a "DNS WG" was going to give advice on how to do, rather than just what to do. Especially considering that the NTIA includes sample architectures. It isn't that the DNS WG is missing the boat by sticking to requirements. The statement should indicate that. (OK, maybe you do in the last half of the final sentence of the preamble: # "We present the following statement as the consensus view of # our community (or the DNS Working Group?) about the principles # that should form the basis of the introduction of a signed DNS root. ) The $source-of-comments offers the following architectural guidelines when considering a process for signing the root. The $source-of-comments feels that proscribing technical details at this point is premature as there are many different approaches to signing a DNS zone. Yadda, yadda, yadda. What's in the preamble is first an excuse for not proscribing a solution and then saying all we will do is give you principles. My advice here is to first say what you are doing and then later say what you are not.
If you want to debate operational details, go ahead. But please don't do that in a way that stops the WG from formulating a response to NTIA. Or you could present those technical details in your own response to the NTIA NoI.
I'd said earlier that I'd rather send my thoughts directly to the NTIA as requested than put it on the list. What I'm saying is that the response seems to be lacking directness in it's message. Hence, it reads very political and non-technical. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
On Nov 10, 2008, at 23:12, Edward Lewis wrote:
How about "While there may be reasons supporting the creation or introduction of another organization in the process of signing the root zone, the reasons are not technical in nature."
This pretty much says the same as what's already there, so no. In fact, your proposed text is far worse. It implies the WG concedes that there are reasons for adding another entity or layer of bureaucracy. That's not what we're saying at all,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2008, at 23:12, Edward Lewis wrote:
How about "While there may be reasons supporting the creation or
introduction of another organization in the process of signing the root zone, the reasons are not technical in nature."
This pretty much says the same as what's already there, so no. In fact, your proposed text is far worse. It implies the WG concedes that there are reasons for adding another entity or layer of bureaucracy.
agreed, let's NOT open that door! -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
I'm in favour of the latest version of the draft. NRM
Jim, I'm quite happy with the latest draft. best, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU
Jim, speaking as an individual, I support the version 1.8 (latest) of the draft. Best regards Marcos
# # $Id: ntia-draft,v 1.8 2008/11/09 17:28:20 jim Exp $ #
The RIPE community (or DNS WG?) thanks the NTIA for its consultation on proposals to sign the root and is pleased to offer the following response to that consultation. We urge the adoption of a solution that leads to the prompt introduction of a signed root zone. Our community considers the introduction of a signed root zone to be an essential enabling step towards widespread deployment of Secure DNS, DNSSEC.
It is to be expected that a community as diverse as RIPE cannot have a unified set of detailed answers to the NTIA questionnaire. However several members of the RIPE community will be individually responding to that questionnaire. We present the following statement as the consensus view of our community (or the DNS Working Group?) about the principles that should form the basis of the introduction of a signed DNS root.
1. Secure DNS, DNSSEC, is about data authenticity and integrity and not about control.
2. The introduction of DNSSEC to the root zone must be made in such a way that it is accepted as a global initiative.
3. Addition of DNSSEC to the root zone must be done in a way that does not compromise the security and stability of the Domain Name System.
4. When balancing the various concerns about signing the root zone, the approach must provide an appropriate level of trust and confidence by offering an optimally secure solution.
5. Deployment of a signed root should be done in a timely but not hasty manner.
6. Updates from TLD operators relating to DNSSEC should be aligned with the operational mechanisms for co-ordinating changes to the root zone.
7. If any procedural changes are introduced by the deployment of DNSSEC they should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the roles and processes as well as the entities holding those roles to be changed after suitable consultations have taken place.
8. Policies and processes for signing the root zone must be transparent and trustworthy, making it straightforward for TLDs to supply keys and credentials so the delegations for those TLDs can benefit from a common DNSSEC trust anchor, the signed root.
9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root.
10. No data should be moved between organisations without appropriate authenticity and integrity checking, particularly the flow of keying material between a TLD operator and the entity that signs the root.
11. The public part of the key signing key must be distributed as widely as possible.
12. The organisation that generates the root zone file must sign the file and therefore hold the private part of the zone signing key.
13. Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process must not necessarily require a change of keys.
I support this text as a reply to NTIA. Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Oops, I replied to the wrong email. I meant I feel confortable with this latest version of the draft, 1,8. Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525500 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/
-----Original Message----- From: dns-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:dns-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 9:57 AM To: dns-wg@ripe.net Subject: [dns-wg] one more effort on the NTIA response
Colleagues, I am sorry to say that we have still not reached consensus on the proposed response to the NTIA NoI. After discussing this yesterday the WG co-chairs felt that further work is needed. We have also had reliable feedback that Friday's draft was being misinterpreted by some of the likely audience for this response outside the WG. I have taken guidance from an informal editing group to tweak the response to clear up the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding. So we now have an updated draft response to consider.
The intention is still to try and get consensus in the WG, ideally on the text below. If that can be achieved in the next few days, we will then endeavour to get consensus from the RIPE community. And if that is done, the agreed text will go to NTIA as a statement of the RIPE community. The NTIA deadline makes this a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, there's little time left for further discussion. On the other, there needs to be reasonable discussion time in both the WG and RIPE lists so that the validity of our procedures are not undermined. Please bear this in mind before commenting about the latest draft on the list.
Please take a look at the latest revised version below. As before, I would ask you to only comment about any matters that you consider to be showstoppers and provide suggested alternate text. Please try not to focus on minor tweaks to the language as that will divert us all from the matter at hand. And take time we don't really have to spare.
Remember too that we're trying to get consensus within the WG. This is hard because there are differing views about how the root could or should be signed. There may be wording in the text below that is not to your personal taste. And other WG members may well be uncomfortable with the stuff in the draft that you like. However I hope we can all agree the latest draft is a fair reflection of the collective view of the WG. Some compromise and good sense from all of us is needed to keep this thing on track.
Don't forget that what we're doing here is expressing the view of the WG (or the RIPE community?) *as a whole*. This does not prevent any of you from making your own personal or professional representations to the NTIA, something I encourage all of you to do. If some of the detail is not to your personal taste, please think carefully about whether it's better to handle that inside the WG in the time available or by making a personal submission to NTIA. So unless there's something in the draft below that you think makes us look bad/stupid/ wrong, can I ask for your support on this latest version?
Oh, and if you are happy with the latest draft, please say so on the list. Your WG co-chairs will feel a lot more comfortable declaring consensus when there are positive statements to that effect on the list. This is far better than presuming a default of silence implies consent.
# # $Id: ntia-draft,v 1.8 2008/11/09 17:28:20 jim Exp $ #
The RIPE community (or DNS WG?) thanks the NTIA for its consultation on proposals to sign the root and is pleased to offer the following response to that consultation. We urge the adoption of a solution that leads to the prompt introduction of a signed root zone. Our community considers the introduction of a signed root zone to be an essential enabling step towards widespread deployment of Secure DNS, DNSSEC.
It is to be expected that a community as diverse as RIPE cannot have a unified set of detailed answers to the NTIA questionnaire. However several members of the RIPE community will be individually responding to that questionnaire. We present the following statement as the consensus view of our community (or the DNS Working Group?) about the principles that should form the basis of the introduction of a signed DNS root.
1. Secure DNS, DNSSEC, is about data authenticity and integrity and not about control.
2. The introduction of DNSSEC to the root zone must be made in such a way that it is accepted as a global initiative.
3. Addition of DNSSEC to the root zone must be done in a way that does not compromise the security and stability of the Domain Name System.
4. When balancing the various concerns about signing the root zone, the approach must provide an appropriate level of trust and confidence by offering an optimally secure solution.
5. Deployment of a signed root should be done in a timely but not hasty manner.
6. Updates from TLD operators relating to DNSSEC should be aligned with the operational mechanisms for co-ordinating changes to the root zone.
7. If any procedural changes are introduced by the deployment of DNSSEC they should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the roles and processes as well as the entities holding those roles to be changed after suitable consultations have taken place.
8. Policies and processes for signing the root zone must be transparent and trustworthy, making it straightforward for TLDs to supply keys and credentials so the delegations for those TLDs can benefit from a common DNSSEC trust anchor, the signed root.
9. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to oversee the process of signing of the root.
10. No data should be moved between organisations without appropriate authenticity and integrity checking, particularly the flow of keying material between a TLD operator and the entity that signs the root.
11. The public part of the key signing key must be distributed as widely as possible.
12. The organisation that generates the root zone file must sign the file and therefore hold the private part of the zone signing key.
13. Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process must not necessarily require a change of keys.
Moin! I would like to thank Jim and all the people who contributed to the document. The current, last, v1.8 is an appropriate response to the NTIA questionnaire and has our support. So long -Ralf --- Ralf Weber Platform Infrastructure Manager Colt Telecom GmbH Herriotstrasse 4 60528 Frankfurt Germany DDI: +49 (0)69 56606 2780 Internal OneDial: 8 491 2780 Fax: +49 (0)69 56606 6280 Email: rw@colt.net http://www.colt.net/ Data | Voice | Managed Services Schütze Deine Umwelt | Erst denken, dann drucken ***************************************** COLT Telecom GmbH, Herriotstraße 4, 60528 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland * Tel +49 (0)69 56606 0 * Fax +49 (0)69 56606 2222 * Geschäftsführer: Albertus Marinus Oosterom (Vors.), Rita Thies * Amtsgericht Frankfurt/Main HRB 46123 * USt.-IdNr. DE 197 498 400
Dear DNS WG, On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:57:23AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
The intention is still to try and get consensus in the WG, ideally on the text below. [...]
the DNS WG co-chairs (again, as an active editor, Jim had recused himself) have evaluated the discussion of the draft NTIA response. The final draft NTIA statement (version 1.8) was sent to the DNS WG mailing list on 11 November. Before and after this date, there has been active discussion and participation on the DNS WG mailing list. 11 people have directly responded to the latest draft, of which nine have explicitly stated their support. One person was unhappy with the lack of operational detail and the presence of one bullet item, but apart from that, generally supported the effort. This is consistent with the discussion of the previous versions of the document, where multiple people had voiced support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement. We therefore declare strong WG consensus on the final draft version 1.8. According to our schedule, the document will now be sent to the general RIPE mailing list with a request for endorsement by the RIPE community. The editors will replace the references to the DNS WG with references to the RIPE community where appropriate. We would like to thank the editors and everybody who commented or contributed. Regards, Peter Koch [for the DNS WG co-chairs]
At 11:57 +0100 11/13/08, Peter Koch wrote:
support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement.
Assuming I'm the dissenting individual - I had a talk with Jim yesterday. My comments were strictly related to the words used and how they might be interpreted, not the point being made. I.e., no substantive argument. In the sense that editing anything means a new cycle of review, rewording for clarification would mean that there'd be no time for vetting, etc., and still get this to the NTIA in time - you can say that I agree with the message being sent (if not the exact words). I didn't have time last evening to email about this conversation with Jim. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
Hi Ed,
support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement.
Assuming I'm the dissenting individual - I had a talk with Jim
actually you were the first person quoted, this reference was to Bill.
yesterday. My comments were strictly related to the words used and how they might be interpreted, not the point being made. I.e., no substantive argument. In the sense that editing anything means a new cycle of review, rewording for clarification would mean that there'd be no time for vetting, etc., and still get this to the NTIA in time - you can say that I agree with the message being sent (if not the exact words).
Thanks for the clarification. Since this would even more contribute to the consensus already declared, I'd rather not reword our statement and hope you do not feel misrepresented. -Peter
At 13:50 +0100 11/13/08, Peter Koch wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Since this would even more contribute to the consensus already declared, I'd rather not reword our statement and hope you do not feel misrepresented.
No problem...never let nits slow down progress. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Never confuse activity with progress. Activity pays more.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:07:33AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 11:57 +0100 11/13/08, Peter Koch wrote:
support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement.
Assuming I'm the dissenting individual - I had a talk with Jim yesterday. My comments were strictly related to the words used and how they might be interpreted, not the point being made. I.e., no substantive argument. In the sense that editing anything means a new cycle of review, rewording for clarification would mean that there'd be no time for vetting, etc., and still get this to the NTIA in time - you can say that I agree with the message being sent (if not the exact words).
I didn't have time last evening to email about this conversation with Jim. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
you flatter yourself :) I beleive I was the disenting individual. and for the record, NTIA is still interested in other views, so either find folks who share your views and respond to the NOI or send in your individual concerns. DoC would be pleased to be inundated w/ responses. :) --bill
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> wrote:
Dear DNS WG,
We therefore declare strong WG consensus on the final draft version 1.8.
w00t!
According to our schedule, the document will now be sent to the general RIPE mailing list with a request for endorsement by the RIPE community. The editors will replace the references to the DNS WG with references to the RIPE community where appropriate.
and if the statement does NOT reach consensus there, I trust you will submit it from the DNS-WG? -- Cheers, McTim http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
On Nov 13, 2008, at 11:31, McTim wrote:
and if the statement does NOT reach consensus there, I trust you will submit it from the DNS-WG?
Yes.
Peter Koch wrote:
Dear DNS WG,
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:57:23AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
The intention is still to try and get consensus in the WG, ideally on the text below. [...]
the DNS WG co-chairs (again, as an active editor, Jim had recused himself) have evaluated the discussion of the draft NTIA response.
The final draft NTIA statement (version 1.8) was sent to the DNS WG mailing list on 11 November. Before and after this date, there has been active discussion and participation on the DNS WG mailing list. 11 people have directly responded to the latest draft, of which nine have explicitly stated their support. One person was unhappy with the lack of operational detail and the presence of one bullet item, but apart from that, generally supported the effort. This is consistent with the discussion of the previous versions of the document, where multiple people had voiced support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement.
Out of curiosity, where do the comments and suggestions that I offered fit into this description?
We therefore declare strong WG consensus on the final draft version 1.8.
I do not object to this characterization. I would simply add that while "strong" may be the right adjective, "unanimous" is definitely not. My chief concern remains that as technologists we enter dangerous waters when we choose to dabble in politics, and run the risk of producing work that is valuable to neither community. Regards, Doug
On Nov 13, 2008, at 20:18, Doug Barton wrote:
Out of curiosity, where do the comments and suggestions that I offered fit into this description?
The editing group that worked on the text over the weekend took into account all the comments that had been made on the list and accommodated them as best and as practically as possible. It was obviously impractical to include everything everyone said verbatim, so the guiding principle of the editing group was to convey the general thrust of those comments in a way that (a) didn't dilute or confuse the overall message; (b) dive into too much detail; (c) produced text that the WG as a whole (and hopefully the RIPE community) would be comfortable with. The editing group also had to consider how others outside RIPE and the WG had perceived the earlier draft. Balancing all of these demands was not an easy task, given the various dynamics and the broader audience who will be reading this response. [FYI I know some governments are taking a keen interest in what we say in response to the NTIA NoI.] I hope you can agree the editing group managed to achieve that. I apologise to anyone who feels their contribution has been overlooked because their favourite phrases didn't make it into the final version. The editing group didn't overlook those contributions. And I hope everyone appreciates that a document of this nature by definition involves compromise from all who contributed to its production.
Jim Reid wrote:
On Nov 13, 2008, at 20:18, Doug Barton wrote:
Out of curiosity, where do the comments and suggestions that I offered fit into this description?
The editing group that worked on the text over the weekend ...
Sorry, I think you misunderstood my question. Peter's description of the discussion (inadvertently?) did not include the fact that there was at least one other person (me) who objected to some of what was included in what became the final statement. I fully understand the delicacies of trying to incorporate various ideas of how to word things into a final form. I'm not at all concerned that my "favourite phrases didn't make it into the final version." hope this helps, Doug
Doug,
generally supported the effort. This is consistent with the discussion of the previous versions of the document, where multiple people had voiced support, with another dissenting individual, who would still not oppose the text going forward as a WG statement.
Out of curiosity, where do the comments and suggestions that I offered fit into this description?
I assume you refer to your message <4914A6ED.40805@dougbarton.us> dated Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:37:01 -0800. First, the summary above was not meant to cover the details of every individual response, especially when these responses addressed earlier than the final draft versions. Second, my reading of your contribution is that it's generally supportive, while you make editorial suggestions and are critical of very few bullet items. Some of the suggestions have been incorporated, albeit not literally. In other cases the editors have decided against a change, which is sensible in favor of convergence and in the presence of maybe competing suggestions. This has happened to others, including my [hatless] self and is not unusual. That said, I still believe we should not have counted your statement on the "dissenting" side. I also maintain the consensus judgement.
We therefore declare strong WG consensus on the final draft version 1.8.
I do not object to this characterization. I would simply add that while "strong" may be the right adjective, "unanimous" is definitely not.
That is true and the words were chosen deliberately.
My chief concern remains that as technologists we enter dangerous waters when we choose to dabble in politics, and run the risk of producing work that is valuable to neither community.
Thanks for that clarification. Best regards, Peter
jim@rfc1035.com:
# # $Id: ntia-draft,v 1.8 2008/11/09 17:28:20 jim Exp $ #
FWIW at this late stage, I was in on the editing of the first version, and I see this as an improvement. I'll gladly support this document, preferrably as a RIPE statement, if not, as a DNS WG statement. Cheers, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail/SIP/Jabber: liman@autonomica.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Autonomica AB, Stockholm ! http://www.autonomica.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll gladly support this document, preferrably as a RIPE statement, if not, as a DNS WG statement.
<aol>
participants (19)
-
Antoin Verschuren -
Barbara Roseman -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Doug Barton -
Edward Lewis -
Gilles Massen -
Jim Reid -
Lars-Johan Liman -
Marcos Sanz/Denic -
McTim -
Niall Richard Murphy -
Ondřej Surý -
Patrik Fältström -
Peter Koch -
Ralf Weber -
Randy Bush -
Richard Lamb -
Rob Blokzijl -
Sander Steffann