[ncc-services-wg] Proposal: optimized rev-DNS operations

> On 27 Oct 2019, at 09:51, Kurt Kayser <kurt_kayser at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> I always had a different picture of the PDP in my mind, other than Jim
> telling me just "no" and "go away".

Apologies if you got that impression Kurt. Because it’s not correct. I said nothing of the sort. Nobody’s said anything remotely close to "no" or "go away” - absolutely not.

I said that if you want to proceed with your proposal, you should bring it to the DNS WG. Because that’s where you’ll find the expertise to analyse and work on it. They’re far better placed to do that work and help you with the gaps in your proposal than the NCC Services WG. One of this WG’s co-chairs suggested you go to the DNS WG too.

I gave you pointers to lots of the questions that need to be resolved and explained key elements -- problem statement, use cases, definitions, etc. -- were missing. The DNS WG could help you work with you on these. That advice was given to *help* you to come up with a clearer policy proposal than the one you posted because that’s not ready to go through the PDP. You agreed on Friday your proposal need further work:

> I figure also some misinterpretation of my intentions. Truely, I need be clearer.


You were also told that once you had a policy proposal that was more mature than the one you posted, it could go through the PDP from either the DNS WG or the NCC Services WG.

I did say that I didn’t support your proposal in its current state because it lacked clarity and was generally immature. That isn’t a "no" or "go away” either.

Others have asked if your proposal has identified a problem that needs fixing. It’s a pity you haven’t yet tried to answer their questions. That’s part of the PDP too. A policy proposal can’t get adopted until it gets consensus in a WG. It's not possible to get consensus when a proposal has unresolved questions or lacks clarity. These are things the policy’s proposer(s) need to address with the help of the appropriate WG(s).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 528 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20191027/dcf9bf2b/attachment.sig>