Subject: [dnsop] Draft minutes from IETF 58 DNSOP sessions

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:30:48 -0500

Draft minutes, please send corrections (to us or to the list, as
appropriate).  Thanks again to our scribes (Ted and itojun), who are
not responsible for what we did with the notes they gave us.

--Rob and Dave

==

DNSOP WG, 58th IETF meeting, November 2003, Minneapolis

First session:  2003.11.10 19:30-22:00 -0600

 Summary minutes, not attempting to follow meeting chronology, which
 hopped, looped, and otherwise failed to follow a straight line.

 Active WG drafts:

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-01.txt.  Important topic.  Moving
   target, but doc out of date at the moment.  Authors begged WG's
   indulgence to let them bring the draft up to date, with a promise
   that they will do so by IETF 59.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices-00.txt.  New
   document, not yet widely read.  Important topic.  Those who have
   read it think it's on the right track.  May want to drop specific
   TTL recommendations in favor of discussion of tradeoffs.
   Discussion of key lengths needs review by crypto experts (request
   already made to security area).  Good discussion of key rollover.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt.  Title is misleading,
   should be something like "considerations for DNS reverse tree".
   Author is tired of fighting with people who have not read document
   and are just reacting to its title.  Some feel that subject is
   still important.  Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino kindly volunteered to
   work on this document if author is tired of holding the pen.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-00.txt.  Has been done
   for a while, WG chairs have been lame about this one.  Ready for WG
   last call, heading for BCP.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-00.txt.  Consensus of room was that this
   is good stuff and should ship without further ado.  Ready for WG
   last call.  Chairs forgot to ask WG whether this should be going
   for BCP or informational, will include that question in last call.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-02.txt.  This one has turned into
   a grab bag of open issues related to DNS and IPv6.  Somewhat dead
   in the water in its current form.  Author has tried very hard to do
   whatever the WG wants with this, but lacks time to flog the WG at
   the moment (has more important things to do in real life).  Pekka
   Savola kindly volunteered to help out with this document.

 Expired WG drafts:

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-02.txt.  Significant interest in having
   something in this space, especially from root server operators.
   Known issues with mechanism proposed in current draft.  Suzanne
   Woolf kindly volunteered to take over this project.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-04.txt.  At least a few
   people thought this one was important and should not be dropped.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-rollover-01.txt.  Author has not been
   working on it recently, but with DNSSEC finally close to
   completion, we may have finally become topical again.  Author will
   resubmit draft so that people can read it.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-ohta-shared-root-server-03.txt.  Author says that
   experiments with the techniques discussed in this draft are in
   progress.  Author will resubmit draft so that people can read it.

 - draft-ietf-dnsop-keyhand-05.txt.  Nobody spoke up for this draft.

 New work:

 - draft-guette-dnsop-key-rollover-requirements-00.txt.  Some overlap
   with draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-transport-guidelines-00.txt, but this
   draft is about requirements in this space.  Not many people in the
   room had read this draft.  No objections to taking it on as WG work
   item.

 - Discussion of name server clock synchronization.  Roy Arends
   performed some measurements in this space, sent summary to the
   mailing list.  Has not generated a lot of discussion.  This doesn't
   matter much for DNSSEC proper, but does matter for transaction
   signatures. Roy agreed to write up a brief draft describing the
   mechanism he used to perform these tests.

 DNS Discovery topic was left for second (Tuesday) session, per agenda
 as announced.

Second session: 2003.11.11 13:00-14:00 -0600

 Entire session devoted to DNS Discovery discussion.

 Summary: No clear consensus on anything.  Largest single camp seems
 to think that just using DHCPv6 lite is enough and that we should
 pick a single mechanism and move on.  Sizable (albeit smaller) camp
 believes that RA based discovery is important; for some reason there
 seems to be a fairly close correlation between folks who think that
 RA should be one of the solutions and folks who think that it's not
 necessary to pick a single solution.  Well-known addresses have a few
 very vocal proponants as well as some determined critics.  While
 other proposals have been surfaced on the list (as well as in
 previous discussions, some dating back many years), none received any
 serious discussion time at this meeting.

 All three of the proposals discussed at the meeting are documented.
 DHCPv6-lite is documented in a DHC WG (about more than just DNS
 discovery) which is in IETF last call.  The several RA-based
 proposals have been consolidated into a single draft.  There is also
 a draft for the current spin on the well-known address proposal.

==
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Ed Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:23:19 -0500

Not a correction to the minutes, just a comment...

>  - draft-ietf-dnsop-keyhand-05.txt.  Nobody spoke up for this draft.

Okay, okay, okay, I'll speak as the editor.

Please kill it.

I have said nothing about it because it's been on death row for many
meetings.  At each meeting I thought it had been discarded, but the
chairs keep listing it as a "dead document walking."  I was hoping that
it would have faded away - but nothing ever really does.

This document was originally adopted in '99 or so.  The DNSSEC protocol
proposal has undergone so many changes that any version of what I wrote
is invalid.  I'm sure we will get better words from folks like Olaf,
Miek, etc., who have continued operational work on the topic.

.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:50:39 -0500

> Not a correction to the minutes, just a comment...

Ack.

> Okay, okay, okay, I'll speak as the editor.

Ack.  Thank you!
.

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:39:15 -0800

Thanks Ed, that is helpful. Dave

.