Subject: [DNSOP] DNSOP Working Group Update and IETF94 Agenda Requests

From: Tim WIcinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:26:44 -0400

Hi

Since we (the chairs) took the summer recovering from the .onion IETF 
Last Call,   I wanted to update the working group on what has been 
accomplished and what is currently outstanding.

	The Negative-Trust-Anchor draft is now RFC7646.

	The root-loopback draft is getting ready to be published.

	The dns-terminology draft is in the RFC Editor Queue.

Along with the key-timing and .onion drafts, the Working Group will have 
published 9 drafts this year.  We want to thank you for all your work. 
However, we are not done:

We have *two* Working Group Last Calls on documents that have been 
through a major discussion process, but received *no* mention during the 
process:

      draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-05
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation/

      draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-05
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies/

The chairs feel these documents are done and ready to move forward. But 
it does seem bad form to just act unilaterally.

We have one document in Call for Adoption.

      draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-howard-isp-ip6rdns/

The author has addressed many comments and concerns raised since IETF91 
(Honolulu), and the chairs feel that all concerns have been addressed 
and should be adopted.  Again, there has been no comments since starting 
call for adoption.

—

We have several drafts which have been steadily being worked on and are 
ready for Working Group Last Call:

      draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/

      draft-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive/

      draft-dnsop-ietf-dnsop-5966bis
      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis/

alt-tld may be waiting for keeping RFC6761 discussions, but the other 
tcp-keepalive is more than ready, and 5966bis is ready once I give it 
another editorial read.

—

Saying all of this, we’re putting out  a call for agenda items for 
Yokohama.   Please send your request to [email-masked]

We plan on spending the next month(s) moving the levers of the process 
forward.

thanks

tim

---

From: Christian Grothoff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 21:52:59 +0200

Dear Tim,

I'm sorry to hear you had to go into rehab, but despite threatening your
recovery, let me remind you that your WG update fails to mention the P2P
name drafts.  Could you please publicly state how IETF plans to proceed
with those?

I'm again asking DNSOP to be fair and follow the same process we used
for .onion for the other P2P special-use names.

Thanks!

Christian

On 10/03/2015 09:26 PM, Tim WIcinski wrote:
> Last Call,

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2015 09:01:59 +1100

I see no mention of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303 which was last
called Dec 07, 1013 [1] and is still awaiting writeup.  Am I going
to have to rev the document a forth time just to keep it alive?

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg10886.html
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 03:24:04 +0900

Hi Tim,
Could I present the following draft on IoT device DNS name
autoconfiguration in 5 minutes
in DNSOP WG in IETF94?

Title: DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Internet of Things Devices
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-homenet-device-name-autoconf-04)

Abstract:
This document specifies an autoconfiguration scheme for the global
(or local) DNS names of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, such as
appliances and sensors.  By this scheme, the DNS name of an IoT
device can be autoconfigured with the device's category and model in
wired and wireless target networks (e.g., home, office, shopping
mall, smart grid, and road network).  This DNS name lets IoT users
(e.g., home residents and customers) in the Internet (or local
network) easily identify each device for monitoring and remote-
controlling it in the target network.

This draft proposes the autoconfiguration of IoT devices' global DNS names
with device information (such as device category and device model).
As you know, Multicast DNS (mDNS) in RFC 6762 is designed for networked
devices
in a local link with local DNS names (e.g., .local) rather than in the
Internet with global DNS names.

I believe that the proposed scheme will facilitate the DNS naming service
of lots of IoT devices in terms of configuration and management cost.

We have implemented the prototype of the proposed scheme and tested it
with electricity meters for a smart grid.

Thanks.

Paul

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Tim WIcinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> Since we (the chairs) took the summer recovering from the .onion IETF Last
> Call,   I wanted to update the working group on what has been accomplished
> and what is currently outstanding.
>
> We have *two* Working Group Last Calls on documents that have been through
> a major discussion process, but received *no* mention during the process:
>
> The chairs feel these documents are done and ready to move forward. But it
> does seem bad form to just act unilaterally.
>
> (Honolulu), and the chairs feel that all concerns have been addressed and
> should be adopted.  Again, there has been no comments since starting call
> for adoption.
>
> —
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

-- 
===========================
Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
Office: +82-31-299-4957
Email: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Personal Homepage: http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php