Subject: [dnsext] Extending WGLCs by one week: closing 2010-01-15

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:30:44 -0500

Dear colleagues,

We have two WGLCs open on three documents.  The original announcements
are at the following URLs:

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg03149.html

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg03148.html

Someone has pointed out to me that the LCs coincided with a longer
holiday period than I knew, and that some people may therefore have
missed the opportunity to offer their comments.

As a consequence, I hereby extend the WGLCs by one week, closing next
Friday 2010-01-15.  If you intend to review one or all of these
documents, and the additional week is not sufficient time for your
review, I implore you to contact me with a date by which you think you
could perform your review.

The LCs were originally scheduled to close today.  None of the
documents has so far received adequate review.  Each document that
fails to meet the threshold of five reviews supporting advancement
before its LC closes will be considered to be dead, and we will drop
them from our list of work items.  (As usual, five reviews is a
necessary but not sufficient condition.  If we had five supportive
reviews and 20 reviews arguing against, we would have to take that
into consideration.  Of course, it seems the chances of getting 25
reviews on any WG document are smaller than my chances of becoming a
Hollywood celebrity due to my sparkling wit and irresistable good
looks.)

It would be most unfortunate if these items did not receive adequate
review.

The AXFR clarifications document has been around for a long time, and
has had a substantial amount of work on it by its editors.  I think we
owe it to those people, our colleagues, to complete our work on the
document.  That means we need to complete the review.

The dnssec-registry-fixes document is a housekeeping document,
urgently needed.  It's really short -- only 6 pages, including all the
mandatory boilerplate -- and an ideal candidate for someone who is not
comfortable with a big protocol document like axfr-clarify.  If you
are one of the many people who comes to DNSEXT meetings but who seems
not to post reviews, I encourage you to dive into this one: it
shouldn't be hard to review, and if you find it too hard to understand
_that's very valuable feedback_.

The dnssec-alg-allocation document is even shorter, at only 5 pages
including all the boilerplate.  It changes the rules about algorithm
assignment, and proposes a mechanism for avoiding exhaustion of the
number space.  Several people said during the GOST discussions that
they would as soon have waited for this procedure to be in place; that
suggested to me, but did not confirm, that they had read the proposal
and supported it.  If that's true, all those people need do is speak
up.  Again, this is an excellent document for people who are often
quiet on this mailing list to tackle, because you don't really need to
understand the detailed history of the DNS protocol and various
implementations in order to understand this document and its
implications.

If you think any of the drafts should _not_ be advanced, that is also
useful feedback during WGLC.  It is important that we get some
response, because in the absence of such response we have to conclude
that the WG isn't interested in actually working on its work items.
If we are forced to that conclusion, we will have to ask ourselves
whether it is reasonable to continue our existence.

Best regards,

Andrew (sheperd for the documents in question)

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

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:29:02 -0500 (EST)

> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg03149.html

I have read draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00.txt and
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-01.txt and support both documents
going forward.

> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg03148.html

I am not familiar enough with the protocol details of AXFR to give this
document a proper review.

Paul

---

From: Brian Wellington <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:02:16 -0800

On Jan 8, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> urgently needed. 

I approve of this draft, with one minor comment.  The text contains:

  This column will contain the current implementation status of the given algorithm.

I don't think "implementation" is the correct word to use, since it's not talking about implementations, it's talking about recommendations and/or requirements.

> number space.  

I approve of this draft.

Brian