Subject: [DNSOP] summary: virtual interim meeting, 16 Feb. 2017

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:28:01 -0500

Hi,

The chairs’ summary from the WG virtual interim meeting last week appears below.

Recording of the webex session: 

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=09e87536cf71661d1e4e7339abcf001e <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=09e87536cf71661d1e4e7339abcf001e>

Chairs’ summary of the discussion

1. sutld-ps WGLC:
	* editors are resolving issues, quite a few have been raised and most are straightforward to resolve
	* distinction between special use names generally and “TLDs” needs to be clear, also distinction between names to be resolved with DNS and names to be resolved otherwise
	* Question came up of where we stand process-wise, particularly if the IETF or IESG change or don't publish the problem statement. There's been no commitment to publish it, but the roadmap that blocked other action on having one was discussed multiple times with our AD; and even if we don’t publish it, the exercise has been useful for the WG
	* Future action may not occur in DNSOP at all; that’s largely up to the IESG.

2. alt-tld:
	* mostly done; we know what it will and won’t do, and there was agreement that more distinction needs to be made in the document
	* as discussed on the list, consensus seems to be against asking for a signed delegation in the root for .alt
	* open issue discussed here was whether to add .alt to the locally-served zones registry; consensus on the call seemed to be not to do that either; editors will propose text to wrap up both issues. Some people felt the justification for the latter should be in a “Security Considerations,” others felt it should be in a “Privacy Considerations”.

3. next steps
	* no one is ready to propose concrete next steps beyond “find out what the IESG thinks”
	* some people feel this topic isn’t DNSOP WG business, because there are technical issues but they won’t be resolved within the scope of the WG charter; a few feel it’s a “layer violation” that has nothing to do with the IETF, because it’s intrinsically and entirely political.
	* some confusion on the scope limitation put in place for the problem statement that we/the IESG might want to relax for DNSOP (or anyone else) to consider solutions