Subject: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:15:20 -0400

Dear colleagues,

At the moment, we have a very light agenda for the Beijing meeting.
These are the items for which we've received requests:

1.  A brief presentation on a DNSSEC history wiki (with a solitication
for participation).

2.  A discussion of draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00.

3.  A discussion of draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-0[1|2].

We'd like people to treat (3) as though it's a WG draft.  Assuming the
charter we sent to the IESG gets approved, that document will
automatically become a WG document by virtue of the charter adoption.
We're being careful not to step out of process, however, and as of
right now, the document isn't strictly speaking on charter.

Our feeling is that a meeting of this sort can be completed within an
hour or so.  However, we find ourselves at the moment with a much
longer slot (currently, Wed. morning, for 2 1/2 hours.  We didn't ask
for that much; it is apparently mostly to deal with scheduling
difficulties).

I note, however, that we have a number of drafts that have been
lingering for some time.  This is mostly due to inertia.  Olafur and I
therefore propose to use the extra time as a breakout session to nail
down whatever changes are still needed in those lingering drafts.  If
we can get five committed reviewers for each document in the room, and
get the necessary text compromises settled, we can then immediately
send them through WGLC, and we would clear our docket.  We think this
would be a productive use of the time.

If you have objections to this plan, please let us know.  If you do
not so object, we'll take that as an indication that the plan sounds
sensible.

Best regards,

Andrew and Olafur.

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

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:40:44 -0400

> would be a productive use of the time.

<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/> has the following which are not stuck upstream of the working group:

  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06
  draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-19

Did you mean just those two, or also others?

Joe

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:40:42 -0700

I would like to see time for discussion of paf's recent draft.
There has been reasonable list traffic to support having
a face-to-face meeting discussion, but I don't think it
falls into your "5 reviewers and WGLC" bucket, because
at least one counter proposal has come in.

For what it's worth, I'm still chewing over his responses to
the issues I raised.  I feel like the basic approach, "some firm
description of the service is needed" is a point at which we
agree.  But the registration methodology has its limits,
as we have seen in many other URI-related registries.
They are so easy to mint that it is hard to capture the ones in use,
much less advise on their creation.  My tea leaves say the
same problem will happen here if this method gets any popularity at
all

I'm not sure yet what to suggest, but if we have extra time in the
meeting schedule, I'm sure I would benefit from hearing others' thoughts
on the problem space.

regards,

Ted

---

From: "Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:48:11 +0200

> I would like to see time for discussion of paf's recent draft.

I think a discussion would be healthy. I will though not be in Beijing but will participate remotely.

   Patrik

---

From: "Rose, Scott W." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:35:20 -0400

>  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06

Kind of waiting for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-03 to advance since it is an ref to draft-registry fixes (and one of the reasons registry-fixes was written).  Don't know if I need a slot to say "waiting for ref to be published".  There was no other discussion on the mailing list that I recall, but correct me if I'm wrong.

>  draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-19

Wouter and I need to rev this (if only to keep it alive).  I think we're still hung up on the whole "What to return when the target name of a DNAME doesn't exist" question (the long thread).  From my reading (as much as I could follow), that was never resolved but spun into larger questions about redirection.

I won't be in Beijing in person, but may participate remotely if possible.  

Scott

> Did you mean just those two, or also others?

===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
[email-masked]
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================

---

From: "W.C.A. Wijngaards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:12:47 +0200

Hi,

On 10/14/2010 01:35 PM, Rose, Scott W. wrote:
> Wouter and I need to rev this (if only to keep it alive).  I think
> we're still hung up on the whole "What to return when the target name
> of a DNAME doesn't exist" question (the long thread).  From my
> reading (as much as I could follow), that was never resolved but spun
> into larger questions about redirection.

It was resolved to not make changes, so I think it is appropriate to
have no text about this.  (that makes it identical to CNAME, as it is
right now).

Best regards,
   Wouter

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:19:57 -0400

> Did you mean just those two, or also others?

Also

    draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates
    draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0

both of which are expired.  I think we need to get them completed.

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

---

From: João Damas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:55:25 +0200

> both of which are expired.  I think we need to get them completed.

on it, may not make whatever the official cut-over is, but hopefully that is not a crucial point

Joao

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:26:29 -0400

Probably not an agenda item, but what is happening with draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-11? -12?  It seems to have expired with no replacement.  

Mike