Subject: [dnsext] draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-03 -- next steps?

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:21:20 +0100 (MEZ)

DNSEXT folks,

draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-03 represents the latest step
in the process started with the IETF 78 meeting discussion
that lead to the encouragement/invitation to me and Ondrej to
prepare an updated specification document for IXFR that at once
integrates Ondrej Sury and Shane Kerr's IXFR-ONLY proposal,
in fulfillment of a chartered work item thence calling for work
on revised specifications for DNS zone synchronization mechanisms
(in the interim re-worded to explicitly mention IXFR-ONLY).

On the mailing list and at the Prague meeting, the draft has
repeatedly been offered to the WG for adoption as a WG draft,
but the discussion every time has prematurely evaded into
elaborations on details instead of deciding on adaption first,
as envisioned in the Working Group Procedures RFCs.

Now, given the efforts already put into the development of the
document, and given the impending closure of DNSEXT, we see
two possible paths to follow:

A)  The WG quickly (on-list and/or in Paris) comes to affirmative
    consensus on I-D adaption.

  In this case, we can quickly re-post the I-D as a WG draft
  (once I-D submission re-opens during IETF), if that is deemed
  necessary under the given circumstances.

  We would then like the chairs to immediately issue a formal
  WGLC call for the document, in order to quickly proceed in
  the fulfillment of the last open chartered work item of DNSEXT.

B)  Otherwise.

  In this case, we intend to proceed with the draft as an
  individual, AD-sponsored draft -- and Andrew already has
  indicated his willingness to actively support this path.

  We'd then like the chairs to organize and quickly execute a
  pseudo-WGLC for the present draft version on the dnsext list.

  Given the perceived exhaustiveness of the discussion last held
  summer and the apparent rough technical consensus achieved,
  and also seeing the support of multiple active operators and
  implementers for the draft, we do not expect significant changes
  to be necessary, but are willing to quickly produce one more
  draft version before approching a suitable AD with a publication
  request for the draft.  We hope that, backed by the pseudo-WGLC,
  the process could be smooth and fast, leading to an IETF-wide LC
  before IESG processing.

To this end, we'd like to solicit quick feedback on how to proceed.

Also speaking for Ondrej (and inofficially for Shane Kerr as well,
the co-author of the original IXFR-ONLY proposal backing us up a bit
behind the scenes),

  Alfred.

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

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:20:23 -0500

On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:

> [ SNIP ]

I have read (and discussed) the draft  and (still) support adoption....

W