Re: WG Last call for BIND

This is a good example of how, if you knew me a little better, our 
communication could be improved.  This was off the topic of BIND in 
specific, on to how to achieve consensus in general.

BIND should be fine.  2518bis may yet need some discussion, as may 
other topics.

Joe Hildebrand
Denver, CO, USA

On Jan 12, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > ...
>> I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to 
>> make forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting 
>> and doing some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make 
>> friends.  Explain your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and 
>> respect can drive a group towards consensus.
>> ...
> I find this comment puzzling. BIND has passed already one WG last call 
> a few years ago, has been on the WG's agenda almost since day one (as 
> part of "advanced collections"), and has been the top priority in the 
> WebDAV WG's charter for quite some time. Does it really need 
> additional political lobbying at this point?
> After all, there is no requirement whatsoever that WGs indeed meet at 
> each IETF (or at all, for that matter). If the WG chairs want to 
> promote a meeting, it would be helpful if there'd be some more advance 
> planning than in the past, so that people would have some idea about 
> what the goals are (just re-stating the status quo isn't that 
> helpful).
> As far as I can tell, the current contents of BIND indeed represents 
> rough consensus (in the semantics the WG wanted to achieve) *and* 
> running code (interoperable code being *deployed*, not only in 
> development), so it's really really time that it get's out of ID state 
> (even if this means publishing as "Experimental" if that is needed to 
> overcome the opposition of a few who, for reasons unclear to me, seem 
> to prefer blocking the progress).
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 14:34:07 UTC