Subject: [dnsext] Plan to wrap up the Working Group

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:42:05 -0500

Dear colleagues,

The chairs have been asked by the AD's to prepare the working group
for closing early next year.

Before the working group closes we need to complete the drafts that
are on our charter.

Here is the list of current open milestones:
 Apr 2011 	RFC3597-bis Unknown RR advanced to IESG for PS
 Jun 2011 	EDNS0-bis update advanced to IESG
 Aug 2011 	Algorithm signaling document to IESG
 Oct 2011 	DNSSEC Errata document to IESG
 Nov 2011 	Decision about new protocol elements, if any
 Nov 2011 	Requirements and current state survey document to IESG
            for publication
 Dec 2011 	IXFR-only to IESG

As you can see we are far behind schedule thus we propose the
following milestones
 Dec 2011  DNSSEC-errata document to IESG
 Jan 2012  RFC3597-bis To IESG for standard
 Jan 2012  EDNS0-bis update to IESG
 Feb 2012  IXFR-Only to IESG
 Feb 2012  Algorithm signaling document to IESG
 Mar 2012  Close down Working group

Note that this removes the aliasing work from the work plan.  The
draft is currently expired, and there was not general agreement about
whether to wait on input from the current ICANN work on variants at
the TLD (but apparently we did wait).  Since ICANN's project is not
scheduled to complete before February of 2012, we can't realistically
expect to complete a requirements document before March.  So we are
planning not to complete that work item.  It is not clear whether a WG
that is closing with unfinished business needs to recharter as a
formal step, but our AD hasn't suggested that we need to.

Best regards,

Olafur and Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:21:32 -0500

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>wrote:

> FWIW, I'm still willing to work on wrapping up this item, if only because
there's a document that needs to be written for certain external audiences
whether it's an RFC or not.

However, I don't think it should stand in the way of concluding DNSEXT.

Suzanne