Subject: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:17:19 -0500

Dear Colleagues,

on  "Signature-Only DNSSEC: A Simplified Approach"
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stjohns-dnssec-sigonly-00.txt
by Mike StJohns

The discussion about Mike StJohn's SO proposal has settled and now
new arguments for or against have appeared.

We want to ask the members of the working group if they are willing
to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

As is currently the practice we have a 'bar' at the level where at
least 5 people step forward, support this work, and commit to doing
review work. Obviously there should be a rough consensus as a whole.

If you do not support this work on the standards track but would not
have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then
please indicate so.

If the working group agrees this is to become a working group
document we will need to assess if this would imply a change in the
charter. Draft texts are welcome (this is a hit to the "at least 5
people" ;-) ).

Olaf and Olafur

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:35:10 +0000

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

no.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

so indicated.

---

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:08:24 -0500

>The discussion about Mike StJohn's SO proposal has settled and now

correction:
s/now/no/

---

From: Matt Larson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:20:28 -0500

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

I am against the WG adopting this document.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

I would not object to Informational or Experimental; my objection is
the working group's spending time and attention on the document.

Matt

---

From: Bob Halley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:02:11 -0800

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards 
No.
> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then
I do not object to informational/experimental status.

/Bob

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:13:20 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

As I noted before, I concluded that the document should not become a
working group document.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

I would be happy to see the document go forward as experimental or
informational (assuming that means that it proceeds as an individual
submission).  

A

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

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:12:16 -0500

Lacking any evidence of demand for a solution to the problem it 
solves, I'd say "now," I mean "no," to the question of whether SO 
becomes a standards track working group document.

(Sorry for the no/now slip up.  No, it wasn't intended as a jab, I 
made the mistake independently and caught it on a re-read and 
couldn't resist keeping it in there.)

I don't know how to answer the question of whether or not I'd have a 
problem seeing this being informational or experimental.  If the 
"author" wants to pursue this as an experimental or informational 
does the working group get involved?  Does the working group *have 
to* get involved?  If the "editor" (what the author might become if 
the working group adopts the document as the groups' own) has to push 
this along the tracks, this is work for the working group and I don't 
see that the effort is justified.

This is like the LLMNR situation in which the IESG turned the 
document back to the WG and a few of us said "why?"  Only one person 
had a stake in it, so far as I know.  It isn't that the subject 
matter is abhorrent, it just solves a problem what doesn't seem to 
have an audience.

I'm certainly against expanding the group's charter so that it can 
chase "make work" items.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Dessert - aka Service Pack 1 for lunch.

---

From: Brian Wellington <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:47:08 -0800 (PST)

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

I vote no.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

I'd have no problem with this, as long as it's outside the scope of 
working group.

Brian

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:35:32 +0100

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

I do not support the adoption of this document.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

As an Individual Submission this draft can serve as a starting point for a
candidate for Informational or Experimental, maybe based on "DNSSEC
Experiments".

-Peter

---

From: Brett Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:23:26 +0100 (CET)

> > to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards track.

I do not support the working group adoption of this doc.

> > have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

I would have no problems in seeing this go forward as informational or
experimental as an individual submission.

Brett..

--
Brett Carr                              RIPE Network Coordination Centre
Manager -- DNS Services Group           Singel 258 Amsterdam NL
GPG Key fingerprint = F20D B2A7 C91D E370 44CF  F244 B6A1 EF48 E743 F7D8

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:16:10 +0000

> to adapt this item as a working group document intended for standards 
track.

I think DNSSEC SO is a good proposal that came at a bad time.  It
mitigates the enumeration problem, but 1) the case for authenticated
denial of existence appears to be becoming stronger (e.g., Barefruit,
OpenDNS) and 2) with the NSEC3 work nearing completion, it would send
a very confusing message to advance DNSSEC SO at same time.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

I would be happy to see the DNSSEC SO drafts adopted by the WG as
experimental or informational (provided of course it had five people
willing to review).

Geoff

---

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:00:30 -0500 (EST)

No.

> have problems with seeing it as informational or experimental then

I don't want to see DNSSEC SO adopted as a WG document at all.

-- Sam