Subject: [dnsop] Proposed moratorium and timeline for the DNSOP WG

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:11:25 +0100

Dear WG,

Rob and myself are still working on the minutes, which have already been
delivered by our scribe. To exploit the impetus felt during the meeting in
Vancouver, we'd like to ask the WG for support for this proposal that was
presented "in the room":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dnsop wg will consider new work items if at least N individuals commit
to review documents before WG Last Call (including revisions). Names of
the reviewers will be known to wg chairs and document authors. Document
authors are encouraged to solicit additional review.
Review includes reading, submitting comments and participation in subsequent
discussion.

No new work items will be accepted until before the IETF65 -00 cutoff.
Exceptions to this rule need an even stronger commitment and must not
conflict with cleanup work on the draft queue.
The moratorium will be extended should the list of open items not be
cleared by the above date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q/A: Will other discussion be allowed on the wg's mailing list?
     Discussion that falls into the charter is welcome on the list.
     The wg, however, commits itself to focus on the "draft du jour".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clean up the queue there will be periods of two or three weeks dedicated
to a particular draft as outlined below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2005-Dec-04	Get WG consensus on the timeline and the criteria

2005-Dec-05	draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid
  2005-Dec-18

2005-Dec-19	draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize
  2006-Jan-08

2006-Jan-09	draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns
  2006-Jan-22

2006-Jan-23	draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required
  2006-Feb-13

2006-Mar-19	IETF 65
  2006-Mar-24

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our suggestion for $N is five persons.

If anyone has strong feelings regarding this proposal please speak up ASAP.
Please also identify yourself to the chairs and authors (or the WG at your
choice) if you are willing to review one or more of the above drafts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Peter {writing as co-chair}
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 08:30:28 +0100

> 2005-Dec-05	draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid

I will review.

> 2005-Dec-19	draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize

I will review.

> 2006-Jan-09	draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns

I will review.

> 2006-Jan-23	draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required

No commitment, review might still happen.

Aggreed..

   (active participant :-) )
--Olaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:04:26 -0500

> 2005-Dec-05	draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid

I will definitely review this.

> 2005-Dec-19	draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize

No promise, but I intend to review this.

> 2006-Jan-09	draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns

I am willing to review this, but I believe people with more IPv6
experience than I have would be better reviewers (so I encourage the
author/chairs to seek more qualified reviewers).

> 2006-Jan-23	draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required

I will definitely review this.

> If anyone has strong feelings regarding this proposal please speak up ASAP.

I don't have strong feelings about it (and therefore don't oppose
it).

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:17:55 +0200 (EET)

> 2005-Dec-04	Get WG consensus on the timeline and the criteria

I can review any of the listed drafts once they get to WGLC.  As I've 
already done a review for all of them in the past, I don't want to 
bother doing it again unless the doc is moving forward.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Brett Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:40:45 +0100 (CET)

> 2006-Jan-23	draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required

I'm happy to review the above two documents.

Brett..

--
Brett Carr                              Ripe Network Coordination Centre
System Engineer -- Operations Group     Singel 258 Amsterdam NL
http://www.ripe.net
GPG Key fingerprint = F20D B2A7 C91D E370 44CF  F244 B6A1 EF48 E743 F7D8
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Dec 2005 09:24:06 +0100

Peter,

I went back to have a look at the list of drafts, and as I was
reparsing your message was a bit confused by the following passage in
your proposal (which BTW is a good initiative):

[email-masked]:
> The dnsop wg will consider new work items if at least N individuals
> commit to review documents before WG Last Call (including
> revisions).
> ...

OK, I get this part.

> No new work items will be accepted until before the IETF65 -00

Huh?

"until before the IETF65 cutoff"???

We are at "before cutoff" _now_, and we've been so for all of my
life and then some. :-)

This must be a typo. What did you actually mean to say? :-)

"until after"?
"until 2 weeks before"?

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
.

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:39:57 +0100

> your proposal (which BTW is a good initiative):

thanks for your support. We are, by the way, still looking for volunteer
reviewers to reach the "5 people" threshold for almost all of the documents.

> This must be a typo. What did you actually mean to say? :-)

Apologies for the ambiguity. It's the poet's liberty to put the exact
span "in ellipsis" :-) What it was meant to say is that new work items should
be accepted only close to the cut-off, but still early enough to meet that
deadline, so

> "until 2 weeks before"?

comes close.

-Peter
.

---

From: Lars-Johan Liman <[email-masked]>
Date: 19 Dec 2005 10:15:42 +0100

> comes close.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds good.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:22:45 -0500

> No promise, but I intend to review this.

I reviewed
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt>. 

I have, to begin with, a couple of nits.  First, according to the doc
it will expire before Jan 8.  I don't know whether that's a problem. 
Second, the discussion in section 3.2 has "yellow" in the
parenthetical remarks about the simulator program, but uses "orange"
in the text.  

More substantively, I also wonder whether people believe that the
uptake of IDNs (in particular) has been big enough that the "new
estimates" caveat at the end of section 3 now needs to be taken into
consideration.  My sense is, "not really", but I'm willing to be
persuaded otherwise.  I do know there are some registries that are
pretty actively promoting IDNA registrations; but I am not so far
convinced that the rate of adoption has been so big as to invalidate
the assumptions of the draft, and I don't see that the labels
resulting from most of those registrations are causing significant
bulk in most zones.  

Other than that, I think this is a useful contribution.  According to
the tracker, there was some question about it going under BCP or
Informational.  I would support the latter (I don't think there's
enough positive guidance here to call it a BCP).

A

.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:55:19 -0500

Sorry, folks, I neglected to change the Subject: heading in my
previous mail.   Please accept my apologies.

A

.