Subject: [dnsext] Timeslot at IETF74?

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:30:49 +0100

Hi,

I'm planning my trip to SF and I have noticed that dnsext doesn't
have timeslot in Agenda. Does anybody know when the dnsext
session is going to be?

Ondrej.
-- 
 Ondrej Sury
 technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer
 -----------------------------------------
 CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.  --  .cz domain registry
 Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
 mailto:[email-masked]  http://nic.cz/
 sip:[email-masked] tel:+420.222745110
 mob:+420.739013699     fax:+420.222745112
 -----------------------------------------

--
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: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:28:46 -0500

>have timeslot in Agenda. Does anybody know when the dnsext

No meeting, Andrew and I announce this in December:
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg02413.html

No request was received for agenda slots.

         Olafur

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:43:51 -0500

> have timeslot in Agenda. Does anybody know when the dnsext

There isn't going to be one, which is why you don't see the timeslot.
We asked many weeks ago whether anyone had possible agenda items for a
meeting; if not, we would have no meeting.  We didn't get responses
with items that needed discussion, so we didn't schedule a session.
(This is in keeping with the WG's charter that we're sleeping.)

Best,

Andrew (for the Chairs)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:33:24 -0500

>with items that needed discussion, so we didn't schedule a session.

Isn't saying there's going to be no meeting leading to no requests 
for agenda items a bit of "self-fulfilling prophecy?"

>(This is in keeping with the WG's charter that we're sleeping.)

And, if the WG is indeed sleeping...

http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00684.html
"It became clear to me at the last IETF meeting that perhaps DNSEXT 
is not as "dormant" as we expected it was going to be..."

(Why I wasn't surprised: 
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00247.html)

The dormant label was officially posted here:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00763.html

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Never confuse activity with progress.  Activity pays more.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:11:21 -0500

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 03:33:24PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:

> Isn't saying there's going to be no meeting leading to no requests for 
> agenda items a bit of "self-fulfilling prophecy?"

I think if you examine the original mail, which you can find at
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg02413.html,
you will see that we said _we_ didn't think there was business that
would warrant a meeting; so we weren't planning one.  However, we left
open the possibility that there _would_ be a meeting in the event that
we received feedback to the effect that one was needed.  The bar was
pretty low: we excluded only topics for which there was no existing
draft and about which there was already no discussion on the mailing
list.

I received exactly one response to this email, from someone _asking_
whether a particular draft needed discussion.  My response was to ask
in return whether any of the open items had not been addressed on the
mailing list.  The interlocutor said that in fact the issues did all
seem to be closed; the main issue was one of getting an updated draft
available.  In the end, we agreed that it was not enough of a topic to
justify a meeting slot.

On the IETF lists, I have noticed many expressions of interest around
virtual meetings, and pressure to reduce the number of WG meetings
that are scheduled during the IETF meeting because the IETF meeting
appears to be expanding to fill all possible calendar time.  I've
heard more than one comment that many WG meetings are mostly status
updates that could easily be addressed on the mailing list.  I have
even heard one of the participants in this thread express similar
sentiments to me, privately.  Therefore, we thought we would ask the
participants whether there were things in which they felt they had
enough to say to warrant scheduling a meeting.  We didn't hear a
response (save the one I outiline above).  Therefore, we Chairs
concluded that there wasn't a strong demand for a meeting and we
couldn't justify using a community resource (a block of time) "just in
case".

If you believe that conclusion was in error, I invite you to make the
argument for an alternative conclusion.  

> And, if the WG is indeed sleeping...

Well, that's what our charter says.

> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2007/msg00247.html)

I note that the end of that mail includes this sentence: "Where's the
energy for all this?"  One thing we can do to focus what energy that
exists is to try to spend all of it on actual documents and review.
That's effort that can occur on the mailing list until such time as we
run into something that warrants face to face time, no?

If people really think that we should have planned a slot in San
Francisco -- and that, by implication, we should plan to do so in
Stockholm and Hiroshima -- I would like to hear it.  But I will say
that I am not a fan of meeting for meeting's sake.  I'm sure all of us
could find useful things to do with the hour or two that would be
saved.  One suggestion I have is for each of us to take the time we
might otherwise spend in a DNSEXT meeting, and devote it to a really
deep and complete review of just one of the documents sitting in the
DNSEXT queue. 

Best,
A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.