Subject: [DNSOP] DNSOP Updates, Document Status etc

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:21:28 -0400

All,

When we started preparing a slide deck for the usual chairs’ slides and
updating the working group on what has been going on, we quickly realized
it was probably better to keep the chairs’ time in the meeting to a
minimum. So there will be a very quick overview in the meeting but more
substance in this note, which is being sent to the WG list.

* Updates

We have found the interim meetings to be effective and focused, and we'll
plan on doing 1-2 between every IETF.   We are currently looking at the
week of April 25th and the week of June 6th.

We are going to start adopting work again starting this week. Our selection
is based on the feedback from our first poll. We'll be sending out notes on
these two this week:

draft-thomassen-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping

draft-wisser-dnssec-automation

As for other work, Benno has been putting together another poll to glean
suggestions from the working group. Of course, nothing is stopping authors
from discussing their work on the mailing list.

* DNSSEC BCP

As many saw on the mailing list, Paul Hoffman has a suggestion on packaging
the existing DNSSEC documents into a BCP.  We think this is a fine idea all
around, and we want to figure out how to make it  happen while being
respectful of everyone's time and energy.  We'll work with Warren to make a
plan and share it on the list in the next couple of weeks.

* Today’s Presentations

We are aware that several of these drafts being presented are initial
versions with little mailing list discussion. Our philosophy has always
been "welcoming, with time permitting" with emphasis on existing work.

Another way to look at this is that the interims have been proven
effective, which allows time for mixing  new ideas with work-in-progress

-------

In addition to the interims, we’ve been working to support more interaction
between DNSOP and other groups, inside the IETF and outside. The chairs of
the DNS-related WGs have met before each of the last couple of IETFs, to
make sure we’re aware of the major issues each group is dealing with. You
might remember that we had a joint interim requested by the ADD chairs to
talk about local-scope DNS in the context of their work, which they found
helpful. And DNSOP chairs regularly join meetings of TLD operators,
ICANN-based technical groups, and informal working groups on topics such as
DoH and DNSSEC deployment. Our participation isn’t to speak for the WG but
to inform others about what DNSOP is doing and to encourage them to be
heard in the IETF.

--------
Document Status

draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

AUTH-48

draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

IESG Eval:Revised-ID Needed

draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-04

Being Discussed today

Q: does the WG think "referral glue" is clearer than current definitions in
8499? (This is the last gating item on 8499-bis)

draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-06

Authors are revising in accordance with WG advice– main result has been
slowly driving the iteration number down.

draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-06

Authors have suggested text for a revision based on feedback on list and in
interim and are finalising with chairs to prepare draft for WGLC.

draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-02

New version with two mechanisms (extensive and simple mechanisms) with an
open question on to keep just the simple mechanism.

(This feels like a topic for the next interim)

draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-03

Chairs feel this is just waiting for the Referral Glue discussions

draft-ietf-dnsop-rrserial
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-05
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01

If the authors of these three drafts send a note to the mailing list with
an update, so the group will know what the next steps are.

---------

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 02:37:53 -0700

>     slowly driving the iteration number down.

FYI, there are no outstanding changes to be made to this document based
on the last round of changes.  In general, I believe most people are
happy with it and its ready for LC.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI