Subject: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 20:32:42 -0400

All,

We feel that the authors have addressed all outstanding issues, and this
document is ready to move forward.  Also, the chairs wanted to kick off
this Working Group before Montreal so if there are any issues that need
some face time, we'll have it.

One thing which arose early in the process was the issue of IPR and how
it would be resolved.  The simple answer is that it is resolved farther
up the process chain.   I spent time reading RFC 3979 on this topic:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-10

This starts a Working Group Last Call for 
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format

Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format/

The Current Intended Status of this document is: Standards Track

Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.  If this does not
seem appropriate please speak out.  If someone feels the document is *not*
ready for publication, please speak out with your reasons.

This starts a two week Working Group Last Call process, and ends on:  20 
July 2018

thanks
tim

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 00:17:21 -0700

Hi Tim,
>up the process chain.   I spent time reading RFC 3979 on this topic:

That RFC is obsolete.  What is the IPR issue?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 05:31:41 -0400

There were initial concerns that the IPR was unclear, and never fully
settled.
All the guidance I received was that the issue would be addressed

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2909/

Yes, it is old, but it was the only reference I could dig up.

Tim

---

From: S Mooensamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 03:18:06 -0700

Hi Tim,
At 02:31 AM 07-07-2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>There were initial concerns that the IPR was unclear, and never 
>fully settled.

Thank you for the URL.  The Tracker does not list the IPR disclosure 
for the WG draft.  I suggest looking at Section 3.3 of RFC 6702 [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. It is Informational

---

From: Peter DeVries <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:55:09 -0400

We have read this document and think it's ready to move forward.

We've also been using the dns-compactor implementation of this standard and
it has shown itself to be quite stable and robust.   We're looking forward
to having this format standardized and hopefully more community interest
than this last call has generated.

Thank you to the authors.

Peter

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-f
> ormat
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 19:02:53 -0400

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:32:42PM -0400,
 Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote 

> draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format

At IETF 99 in Prague, I implemented the version of this time
<http://www.bortzmeyer.org/c-dns-tests.html>. Some problems were
raised and I think they are now addressed. C-DNS is quite different
now (much less mandatory things, for instance) and, in my opinion, the
document -07 is ready and useful. (Unfortunately, I didn't port my
work to the last draft.)

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 07:57:13 -0400

I have gone over the diffs of the document, and stand by my earlier 
assessment that this document is ready for standardization. Please move 
it to IETF Last Call.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:57:07 -0400

All

The WG Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format and the chairs
feel we have enough consensus to move this forward.

HOWEVER,  two things did come up with some reviews that happened in the
last few days:

- The packet format has a version number, but the draft does not document
or explain this.

- There is a concern that the math on the packet size may be slightly off.

Sara has agreed to work on the text for the version number, and I agreed to
sit down and count all the bits and make sure things are accurate.

Sara will be on Holiday until August, so we hope to have these issues
sorted out "very soon" and we will move this along.  I'll work on the
Shepherd write up (unless someone in the working group wants to do it!) as
well.

Thanks
Tim