Subject: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

From: tjw ietf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 06:55:55 -0400

I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down,
but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off
a Call for Adoption on this document. (well, maybe late).

This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

This call for adoption ends: Midnight 25 May 2017

Thanks,
tim wicinski
DNSOP co-chair

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 18:38:44 +0200

> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I support adoption of this draft.

> This call for adoption ends: Midnight 25 May 2017

I'm willing to review, contribute.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:12:03 -0700

At Thu, 11 May 2017 06:55:55 -0400,

> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I support the adoption.  I'm willing to review subsequent versions.
Actually I've already reviewed the current version and provided
comments:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg20130.html
but as far as I remember I've not seen any response to it from the
authors.  I hope that was not because the comments were so stupid and
simply and silently dismissed.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: "Peter van Dijk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:32:25 +0200

Hello Jinmei,

> simply and silently dismissed.

We have not silently dismissed you, and we appreciate the time you took 
to write it all down. We have compiled a long list of comments to go 
through, and your email, being extra long, is currently a singular item 
on that list because it deserves some time to digest. We take every 
comment seriously, even if we don’t necessarily respond. I hope we can 
post a new version within a few weeks.

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

---

From: bert hubert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 20:33:39 +0200

> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I have reviewed this draft and also have operational & development
experience with the authoritative side implementation of something highly
similar.

In addition, Peter, one of the co-authors, is a swell coworker of mine and a
person I enjoy drinking beer with.  So take my recommendation with the
appropriate grains of salt.

But given all that, I heartily recommend ANAME for adoption by DNSOP.

	Bert
	PowerDNS

---

From: "Mark Scholten" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 21:15:12 +0200

> From: tjw ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:56
>
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

I'm willing to review.

Kind regards,

Mark

---

From: tjw ietf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 15:30:31 -0400

JINMEI

I've noted your previous remarks as something I would take up with the
authors.  But thanks for the reminder.

tim

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Mark Scholten <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 17:21:58 -0400 (EDT)

> clearly stating your view.

I am against adopting this document. It proposes to create a new RRTPYE
that has specialised processing and bundles two problem solutions into
one niche solution that has offline DNSSEC signing issues.

I think it is better to solve the problem in two dinstict parts:

1) Create an ANAME record that instructs where an AUTH server can get updated data
    regarding its A/AAAA records. This can be signed without any problem.

2) Create an EDNS0 option allowing arbitrary query types to be bundled.
    This will allow asking for A+AAAA+ANAME, resulting in getting the
    latest known records plus a reference where to get updates in one query.

There were already drafts out there that address 2)

Also, solving 2) allows bund;ing to be used for other record types as
well (that don't use _prefixes).

Paul

---

From: Pieter Lexis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 14:19:13 +0200

Hi Tim et al.,

On Thu, 11 May 2017 06:55:55 -0400

> DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I support the adoption of this draft by the working group. I have some reservations on the requirements for recursors in this draft, but this will be discussed at length I believe.

> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

As Peter is a direct colleague of mine, I will not supply a review, but am willing to provide text.

Best regards,

Pieter

-- 
Pieter Lexis
PowerDNS.COM BV -- https://www.powerdns.com

---

From: Bob Harold <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:54:56 -0400

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:55 AM, tjw ietf <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ...

I support adoption and will review.

-- 
Bob Harold

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 May 2017 14:51:21 -0000

>DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

I think we should adopt it as a starting point, but it needs a lot of
work before it can be published.

In particular, I agree with Paul W that ANAME has to work with offline
signing, since a lot of us have no plans to do online signing, ever.
I don't necessarily agree with his way to make that happen.  Perhaps
it could be more like CNAME and return the A/AAAA records with the
original names and signatures.

R's,
John

---

From: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 13:15:50 -0400

On May 11, 2017, at 6:55 AM, tjw ietf <[email-masked]> wrote:

I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down, but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off a Call for Adoption on this document. (well, maybe late).

I support adoption and will review. The market has spoken (long ago) that something like this is needed, so we might as well standardize it.

Matt

---

From: william manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 13:09:55 -0700

I will review. I support adoption.

On Friday, May 19, 2017, Matt Larson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> On May 11, 2017, at 6:55 AM, tjw ietf <[email-masked]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>> wrote:
>
> I support adoption and will review. The market has spoken (long ago) that
> something like this is needed, so we might as well standardize it.
>
> Matt
>
>

---

From: tjw ietf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 18:23:08 -0400

All

The Call for Adoption ended last night, and there was strong consensus to
adopt this document.  We did hear the concerns about DNSSEC and we do not
take them lightly.  The chairs are confident that the authors can work out
these issues.

The authors can resubmit their document with the format

Thanks
tim