Subject: opt-in and consensus

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:34:52 -0500

The opt-in issue has to some extent polarized the working group into 
folks that are "for" opt-in and folks that are "against" opt-in. 
Fortunately, the polarization is not strong and for the most part 
amicable.  But ultimately, this polarization puts the WG chairs in a 
nearly impossible situation.

Consensus doesn't mean majority rule, nor even super majority, in 
fact, any sense of voting is undesirable.  The fact that we have 
folks supporting or not supporting opt-in is a symptom that I think 
we've lost the way to consensus.  (This is a lot like curving an 
exam.  Where do I draw the line between the A's and B's?  This kind 
of issue puts too much pressure on the ones 'forced' to declare the 
result.  It's better to prepare the exam such that a curve is not 
needed - it can be done.)

I think that the first realization is that neither the WG nor the 
IETF can prevent any individual (organization) from running anything 
on the Internet.  It's coming down a realization to me that it is not 
up to the WG to allow or deny opt-in, but to review how it works. 
During the review the WG might recommend strict boundaries on the use 
of opt-in, with the realization that the WG can only recommend 
boundaries.  It is the obligation of the draft editors that the 
review results be accurately, clearly, and faithfully reflected in 
the final document.

Forcing our beloved chairs to choose "for" or "against" is not right.

The action item for the group is to scour, test, and comment on the 
current document that is the definition of opt-in.  This is a WG 
item, hence it ought to reflect our consensus.  Don't review it just 
for grammar and spelling - is it missing something?  An applicability 
statement?  A strong enough security considerations?

I sense that some folks wouldn't want to use opt-in in their zone. 
That's fine, there's never been a mandatory to use protocol or 
option.  (An ISP is free to transit only Appletalk if they want, even 
though it is not an IETF defined standard.)  For folks that do not 
want to use opt-in, is there a reason that your neighbor shouldn't.

I'm not talking in the vein of "I invite my competitors to run their 
network this way" but in the vein of whether my competitors will 
pollute my use of the network through this use.

Will opt-in undermine the ability of resolvers to authenticate data 
received?  Will opt-in in some zones result in resolvers being able 
to authenticate data in zones not using opt-in?

Do I want to use opt-in?  That's not the question.  Will opt-in in 
.example.com. prevent me from validating www.arin.net.?  Not by the 
current definition, so far as I can tell.  That's the view point I'd 
like to see reflected in the document.

PS - For all the talk about the spirit of the protocol, remember that 
what matters is what ultimately is on the wire.  Can I get from the 
result to a 'trust anchor' is more important in DNSSEC than if a zone 
is secure or not.

PPS - Why am I saying this?  It's not that I believe we should have 
it, I have no interest in opt-in either way.  I feel like many others 
that this issue has hung on way too long - and I'm thinking that it 
is not the issue, but rather the discussion that is the problem.

PPPS - Although I am not trying to push for opt-in, don't oppose 
something that does not impact you.  Oppose something only if you 
know it will impact you (negatively).  Hopefully opposition will come 
in a form that is easily understood ("send text").  And to be fair - 
a negative impact includes a large array of impacts, so don't be shy.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

I've had it with world domination.  The maintenance fees are too high.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:56:58 -0800

> nearly impossible situation.

what a piffle excuse for politization.