Subject: [DNSOP] No meeting in Atlanta [Re: Whether to meet at IETF-85 in Atlanta]

From: Stephen Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:32:20 +0100

On 24/09/12 14:18, Stephen Morris wrote:

> We'd like to make a final decision no later than 12:00 UTC Tuesday 
> 2 October, so please help by posting your thoughts to the list 
> before then.

The bulk of discussion on the list since the last meeting has been:

* Comments on the key timing last call
* Discussion on 4641bis and DPS framework documents

An evaluation of the last call comments on key timing is pending.
4641bis and DPS framework are both with the IESG, and we will post a
report on their progress to the list.

Although we held on beyond 2 October before making a final decision,
there was no response to our original email and little discussion
beyond the topics above.  Your chairs reached the conclusion that
there was little demand for a face to face meeting, therefore decided
to cancel the slot we had provisionally secured.

Stephen and Peter

---

From: Joseph Gersch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:20:26 -0600

We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming convention for CIDR address blocks and asked to discuss this at the Atlanta meeting.  Did you miss this request?
 - Joe Gersch

On Oct 12, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Joseph Gersch
Chief Operating Officer
Secure64 Software Corporation

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:27:30 -0400

> We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming convention for CIDR address blocks and asked to discuss this at the Atlanta meeting.  Did you miss this request?

I didn't actually reply, but there are some aspects of trust anchor publication and retrieval that could use some momentum. It sounds like the decision on the meeting is final, but if for some reason it goes ahead anyway, count me in.

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jabley-dnsop-validator-bootstrap-00
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jabley-dnssec-trust-anchor-05

Joe

---

From: Stephen Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:31:57 +0100

On 12/10/12 16:20, Joseph Gersch wrote:
> We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming
> convention for CIDR address blocks and asked to discuss this at the
> Atlanta meeting.  Did you miss this request? - Joe Gersch

Yes we saw it.

The principal place for discussion is the mailing list, and ideally
the WG meeting should be reserved for topics that have previously been
discussed on the list but would benefit from a face to face
discussion.  Admittedly we don't always adhere to that principle, but
it does guide our decision.

The decision whether or not to have a meeting is always finely
balanced. We have to book a slot quite far in advance of the IETF,
which we always do.  But before the publication of the final IETF
agenda, we have to make a judgement as to whether we have the suitable
topics for a meeting or whether suitable topics are likely to arise
between then and the date of the meeting.  What we don't want is to
either cancel the meeting once announced in the final agenda, or to
have a ridiculously short meeting because of lack of material.

In this case, we looked at what had been discussed since the last
meeting and the feedback we got from the working group in response to
our request for topics, and decided that we didn't have enough
suitable material to justify a meeting this time.

Stephen

---

From: Joseph Gersch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:13:20 -0600

fair enough.  Thanks for the clarification.  
 - Joe

Joseph Gersch
Chief Operating Officer