Subject: [dnsext] DNSEXT closing down soon

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:39:28 -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; we're looking into that, and will return with an answer.

Best regards,

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

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:43:46 -0800

> for closing early next year.

Suppressing my initial (not family-friendly) response, can I simply ask,
"Why?"

-- 

		"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
		"Too practical."

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: "Jiankang Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:09:00 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Barton" <[email-masked]>
To: "Olafur Gudmundsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] DNSEXT closing down soon

> Suppressing my initial (not family-friendly) response, can I simply ask,

a very good question.

there was a discussion log about closing the dnsext wg in 2007.
pls see http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dnsext/2007-03-21.html
but it survives

>From chairs'words, it is that AD request to close down the wg, not WG 
members.
I think that IETF is a down to up organization, not a up to down 
organization.
so any request to close down the wg should come from the wg.
but it seems that we heard nothing about it until this message.

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:26:02 -0800

On Dec 3, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Jiankang Yao wrote:

> I think that IETF is a down to up organization, not a up to down organization.

That would never happen. WGs always think they should exist, even when they are producing almost nothing.

> but it seems that we heard nothing about it until this message.

That is simply not true, Jiankang. It has come up many times at the face-to-face meetings, with a bunch of us saying we supported closing it down.

It sounds like the ADs finally got around to acting on what people had asked for.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 13:19:48 -0500

At 9:26 -0800 12/3/11, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>  I think that IETF is a down to up organization, not a up to
>>  down organization so any request to close down the wg should come
>>  from the wg.
>

I certainly feel that closing down DNSEXT leaves a void in the 
standards world of the DNS protocol.  However, the WG really hasn't 
shown much in the way of progress, even when viewed over the long 
haul.  DNSEXT was formed in about 1999, with the conclusion of two 
other DNS related WGs.  In the 12 year run how many documents made it 
to Full Standard or even Draft Standard?  (Not very many.)

The DNS protocol is a fairly simple protocol with a constrained 
mission.  The fact is that there's a point at which continued 
tinkering becomes over-engineering.  In some respects, we may have 
(arguably I emphasize) passed that point.

What I have dealt with most recently is the deviation of 
implementations from the as-written specifications.  In operations, 
there is no perceived problem, the protocol chunks along, there's a 
huge industry based on it.  It's even created a large market for 
intangible assets - to put that mildly.  Yet the documents have not 
kept pace.

If there's work to do, it's not engineering, it's document clean up. 
There seems little appetite for that, which bodes poorly for a 
working group, especially one consisting of volunteers.  The last 
document I worked was AXFR-"clarify" and I didn't even finish it 
because of what I perceived to be general apathy.  The document was 
needed, and carried to the finish by Alfred, but I didn't see much of 
a "group" effort to work on it.

Questions I have:

  Will the mail list continue?

  If so, how will current non-subscribers learn of the list?

  Who will be the focal point for questions from other WGs about DNS?

  Are all instructions to IANA complete and understood?

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

Vote for the word of the day:
"Papa"razzi - father that constantly takes photos of the baby
Corpureaucracy - The institution of corporate "red tape"
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:48:45 -0500

I recognize that DNS is a core Internet technology and I appreciate the contributions of the WG to that technology over the years.  At present, it appears that the last new work was taken on the WG almost two years ago, and the remaining charter items Olafur listed in his announcement have been in process for at least two years.  Based on that level of activity and lack of new work in the WG queue, it seems to me to be appropriate to wrap up the final charter items and close down the WG.

Thanks to Ed Lewis for asking a few salient questions.  We will keep the dnsext mailing list open to provide a forum for future discussion of dnsext issues.  I would appreciate any recommendations on how to promote awareness of the dnsext mailing list.  The DNS Directorate will also continue to provide expertise, advice to other WGs and review of IETF documents.  If some issue or issues rise to the level of IETF action, e.g., the work on aliasing, we will consider chartering a single-topic WG focused on that issue.  

Ed: Can you say more about your last question?

- Ralph

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 05:52:36 +0000

Ralph, 

	wrt the "DNS Directorate" - if it is to remain, it would be useful to know
	who is on it, and why.  What are the qualifications for joining/removal?
	There are quire a few people qho are highly qualified DNS folks who are
	not part of said directorate and it would be questionable to leaave such 
	a censure board intact w/o due process.  I would argue that if the WG is being
	disband, so should the rest of the support heirarchy, save the mailing list,
	which is open to anyone.  YMMV of course, but I think leaving a directorate
	intact, unaccountable to the  community, is a -really bad idea-.

/bill

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 22:26:45 -0800

>         who is on it, and why.  What are the qualifications for 

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/dns.html

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 11:43:28 +0000

On 4 Dec 2011, at 05:52, [email-masked] wrote:

> YMMV of course, but I think leaving a directorate intact,  
> unaccountable to the  community, is a -really bad idea-.

Bill, whatever your views on the accountability or otherwise of the  
DNS Directorate, the topic is surely orthogonal to what happens to  
dnsext?

I would presume the DNS Directorate (fine fellows that they are) are  
accountable by the wise words of advice given to the ADs and WGs  
whenever they need them. That said, it should be easier to find the  
Directorates' home page on the IETF web site. [Perhaps a link on the  
left hand-side, just like there is for WGs, IESG and so on.] It seems  
this can only be found by feeding "Directorate" into the search box in  
the top corner of www.ietf.org.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 21:24:42 +0000

> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/dns.html

	care to answer the second part of the first question and then the second question?

/bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 23:25:56 +0000

> DNS Directorate, the topic is surely orthogonal to what happens to  

	perhaps.  if a directorate exists without a foundational 
	wg to support it, what you end up with is an effective censure board
	that rules on proposed changes to the DNS, absent broad input 
	from the community.  absent a WG, what are the rules for 
	becoming a member of the directorate and how is a member removed
	for cause?   If you are comfortable w/ the IESG and the ADs making 
	DNS protocol choices on yur behalf, then that is your perogative.
	
	I for one, am not and would like the ability to have/conviene
	a WG to solve DNS issues -BY THE COMMUNITY- and not by a closed,
	opaque body that is not accountable to that community.

> the top corner of www.ietf.org.

	I have the answer on who,  we don't have answers on succession
	or accountablity

/bill

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:35:36 -0800

> then the second question?

I don't know the answer to those questions.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 01:08:20 +0000

On 4 Dec 2011, at 23:25, [email-masked] wrote:
> 	wg to support it

What, just like pretty much all the other IETF directorates: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html?

Could dnsop serve as your "foundational wg"? If not, why not?

> 	what you end up with is an effective censure board
> 	from the community.

I think you're being over-dramatic. The role of the DNS Directorate is  
very clear. At least it is once you find its home page: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/dns.html 
.  :-) It's a bit of a stretch to claim dnsdir constitutes an  
"effective censure board that rules on proposed changes to the DNS".

> 	absent a WG, what are the rules for becoming a member of the  
> directorate and 	how is a member removed for cause?

Oh. You believe the IETF is a democracy with bureacucratic procedures.  
I see. :-) I do agree that you have a valid point in how DNS  
directorate members are chosen and retired. This still has nothing to  
do with the winding up of dnsext IMO.

> 	If you are comfortable w/ the IESG and the ADs making

I didn't say that and I very much doubt our friends in the DNS  
directorate see their role like that either. Though since there's no  
reports on what they do/say, how could someone from the outside know?

> 	opaque body that is not accountable to that community.

+1. I would expect that if the DNS Directorate was confronted with  
something that looked like a protocol change, they'd do The Right  
Thing. ie Get the Powers That Be to create and charter a new WG.

> 	I have the answer on who,  we don't have answers on succession

By all means continue to bang that drum Bill. But please don't confuse  
that with the demise of dnsext.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 02:39:30 +0000

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 01:08:20AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> I think you're being over-dramatic. 

	as may be... 

> do with the winding up of dnsext IMO.

	actually, it kind of does - the directorate came into existance to 
	support dnsext - absent dnsext, there is no good reason to keep
	an private, non-transparent group around making policy choices
	(Ralph indicated they would be taking on this role...)

> reports on what they do/say, how could someone from the outside know?

	we wouldn't and there is no way to find out.  pretty much the 
	definition of a cenusre board, star chamber, or kangaroo court.

	completely unaccuntable.
	
> Thing. ie Get the Powers That Be to create and charter a new WG.

	really?  do you want to test that?  why couldnt the community
	do it?  like they have for the past 25 years.  

> that with the demise of dnsext.

	as long as they are tied together - then they will get mentioned 
	together.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 22:35:09 -0500

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 02:39:30AM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:

> 	support dnsext

As far as I understand the purpose of directorates, they are designed
to provide support for ADs, and not for WGs.  My understanding of the
DNS Directorate and its structure conforms to that.

The Directorate's composition will, I suppose, perhaps need
adjustment, because two of its members (Olafur and me) will disappear:
our roles are ex-officio, and in the event there's no office, there's
no office to be out of.

In any case,

> 	as long as they are tied together - then they will get mentioned 

they are plainly not tied together.  For instance, the DNS Directorate
also serves the OPS ADs, and the chairs of DNSOP are ex-officio
members too.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 23:08:54 -0500

If I recall correctly, there was significant support for
draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode
In fact, looking back, there was a WG Last Call issued on this draft
on April 13th of this year with favorable responses.

Can this be advanced?

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:20:42 +0100

Since a lot of the tweaking also comes from actually from the
operational site (how was X really supposed to work; can we optimize
Y; etc.) maybe some if not most of the left-overs can be moved to
the dnsops group? Or is that WG also going to retire).
    
    Questions I have:

There is the usual non-WG list page <http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html>
and there are actually other lists (such as OARC related lists)
where one see DNS discussion popping up. Then referral to the
namedroppers and or dnsops make take place.

      Who will be the focal point for questions from other WGs about
      DNS?

Given the discussion I noticed, there is a guild of the black
helicopter pilots :-).

Hard to answer, are they ever?

	jaap

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:36:52 -0500

Dear colleagues,

On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:19:48PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> However, the WG really hasn't
> other DNS related WGs.  In the 12 year run how many documents made
> it to Full Standard or even Draft Standard?  (Not very many.)

> working group, especially one consisting of volunteers.

Speaking only personally, I think the above two observations by Ed are
the key: the WG has not worked very hard to complete documents that
are in train, and the main job at this point is document clean-up.  We
could go further and note that the last big push in the WG was to get
DNSSEC -- a real extension -- done.  It would not be hard to argue
that the WG should properly have been wound down then, and we didn't
do it.

With my co-chair hat on but without having discussed this with Olafur,
I will say that, when asked by our AD about this in the recent past,
it has been my view that the WG does not want to tackle those document
clean-up matters, and that if we want a WG that has as its main task
something for the DNS that was roughly like YAM, we should charter a
new WG for that.  Chartering such a WG would be an opportunity to
guage whether there is real interest in doing the work (for, to begin
with, we'd need some Internet Drafts to discuss during a chartering
discussion).

DNSEXT actually made an effort to undertake this documentation work,
and it didn't go anywhere: volunteers just didn't want to work on that
topic.  People all seemed to agree that it was important _someone_ do
it, but none of them had the time, the expertise, or both.

>  Will the mail list continue?

I see no reason for it not to.
 
>  If so, how will current non-subscribers learn of the list?

Apart from the IETF list of such lists, I suppose informally.

>  Who will be the focal point for questions from other WGs about DNS?

No hat, personal opinion: I am not sure DNSEXT is any more anyway.
There is a basic problem that DNSEXT doesn't do review: not of its own
documents, and not of others' documents either.  DNS64 got hardly any
review by people who really knew the DNS, even though some of us asked
repeatedly for such reviews.  A review came from the DNS Directorate
at the very last minute; it uncovered several serious issues with the
document.  MIF recently did a WGLC that was echoed in DNSEXT, and
while there was a lot of discussion on the list, there were not that
many complete reviews that I saw come from here.  There was a great
deal of discussion about whether MIF's starting premise was one we
wanted to accept, but that did not seem to me to extend so far as to
reading the document and suggesting text changes that would say, "This
is a bad idea, but if you are determined to do it. . . "  

Moreover, if we think that there are issues in other WGs that need DNS
clue, we can do that by participating in those other WGs.  
 
>  Are all instructions to IANA complete and understood?

Hat back on.  No.  One of the major problems we in fact have has to do
with RRTYPE code point assignment, which is (from IANA's point of
view) broken, and which also does not happen according to the
published process.  I believe that needs to be fixed.  I would like to
say I think we can do it by the spring, but history does not make me
optimistic.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:28:51 +0900

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Edward Lewis wrote:

> the key:

Isn't it a well known problem of IETF standardization process
to require irrational amount of effort to advance PS to DS and
DS to IS?

> We
> DNSSEC -- a real extension -- done.

DNSSEC is a real extension? You should be joking.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:02:44 -0500

> to require irrational amount of effort to advance PS to DS and

It would indeed require a great deal of effort now, since that
advancement path is no longer open.

> DNSSEC is a real extension? You should be joking.

Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of DNSSEC, it was in fact
a change to the protocol and in that sense an extension of
capabilities.  Other things we have been working on are actually
document cleanup or maintenance of existing capabilities (like adding
new EDNS0 options or new algorithms to DNSSEC).

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:42:52 -0800

>the key: the WG has not worked very hard to complete documents that

As a data point:

  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-00   Oct 2009
  draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-00        Sep 2006
  draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-00                 Nov 2010 (published Mar 2011)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-00            Mar 2000 (published Jun 2010)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-00    Oct 2009 (published Aug 2010)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00   Sep 2009 (published Nov 2010)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-00             Sep 2009 (published Jul 2010)
  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-00      May 2005
  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-00      Nov 2010
  draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-00        Dec 2007

And for DNSOP:

  draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-00                      Feb 2007 
(published Jul 2011)
  draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-00   Feb 2007 
(published Jul 2011)
  draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00            Jul 2006 
(published Jul 2011)
  draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-00           Nov 2009
  draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-00                       Jun 2003
  draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-00                     Mar 2009

Regards,
-sm

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:29:28 +0000

> I don't know the answer to those questions.

	then leaving a directorate intact seems unwise, imho.

/bill

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:31:04 -0500

> DNS Directorate and its structure conforms to that.

The description of the directorate at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/dns.html is accurate and current.  It describes the Directorate as advisory, giving input to the OPS and INT Ads rather than being tied to any specific WGs.  As a practical matter, I depend on the Directorate as advisory, as described in the 5 bullets on the web page.

Archives of dns-dir are publicly available at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-dir/current/maillist.html

> our roles are ex-officio, and in the event there's no office, there's

OK, we should open a discussion about updating the membership.

> also serves the OPS ADs, and the chairs of DNSOP are ex-officio

Andrew has it right - the Directorate is advisory to OPS and INT ADs, rather than being tied to any specific WG.

- Ralph

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:38:54 -0500

> 	intact, unaccountable to the  community, is a -really bad idea-.

Bill - I disgaree with your premise that the Directorate is a "censure board".  The description of the mission of the Directorate at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/dns.html is consistent with current practice.  The Directorate is entirely advisory and in support of the IESG rather than any specific working group.

- Ralph

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:40:29 -0500

Ralph,

I think Andrew answered the question here.  When I wrote my message 
in the back of my mind was the same issue, I just couldn't firm it 
up.  I ran into this when I tried to get "The Undocumented Types" 
document going.

At 7:36 -0500 12/5/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>published process.  I believe that needs to be fixed.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg11774.html is 
a comment that reflects that all is not well.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:48:25 -0500

On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:40 AM 12/5/11, Edward Lewis wrote:

> Ralph,
> 
> I think Andrew answered the question here.  When I wrote my message in the back of my mind was the same issue, I just couldn't firm it up.  I ran into this when I tried to get "The Undocumented Types" document going.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

- Ralph

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg11774.html is a comment that reflects that all is not well.
> 
> --

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:48:58 +0000

> >> Thanks to Ed Lewis for asking a few salient questions.  We will keep the dnsext mailing list open to provide a forum for future discussion of dnsext issues.  I would appreciate any recommendatio…

	thanks for the clarifing mail.  Since the DNS directorate is advisory tothe OPS and
	INT ADs and is not tied to any specific WG, I think the comments wrt a censure board
	are accurate.   Your statement ".. will also continue to provide expertise, advice and 
	review..." sounds like just such a body, absent a WG to provide balance to IESG/AD
	rule making.  Sounds like neither of us is swayed from our respective positions wrt
	the ongoing existance of a Directorate.  

	However on the demise of DNSEXT, I think the schedule is acheiveable and worthwhile.

/bill

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:54:58 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dnsext] the DNS Directorate and the end of dnsext
> 
> The Directorate's composition will, I suppose, perhaps need adjustment,
> because two of its members (Olafur and me) will disappear:

You could become regular members, depending on what their rites of passage for admission are.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:56:18 -0500

The problem with the DNS Directorate arose out of an occasion when it
actually was used by a DNSEXT chair to overrule the consensus of the WG.

There is history there and no, I will keep bringing it up till I get an
apology.

The DNS Directorate is the reason that DNSSEC did not deploy in 2002.

We already have ICANN, we do not need even more self perpetuating cabals in
this space. They are particularly dangerous in the DNS space because there
is a de-facto monopoly (ICANN) which is not a technical organization and
may well prefer to rely on the DNS Directorate for informal advice and
treat it as IETF input.

There is not so much of a problem in other parts of the IETF as the IETF
has no veto power over progress. If I have a disagreement with the security
directorate (say) they have no power to block my protocol (other than
pointing out that ROT 13 is maybe not a strong enough cipher for credit
card numbers (say)).

Directorates are usually vehicles for explaining necessary expertise to
other parts of the IETF. In the case of Security this is inevitable. We got
into a mess with XML which makes it necessary to have review there as well.
If it is still necessary to have a DNS directorate then DNSEXT has not done
the job it needs to.

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

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:08:08 -0500

Second ping.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:44:01 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donald Eastlake" <[email-masked]>
To: "Olafur Gudmundsson" <[email-masked]>; "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] DNSEXT closing down soon

>Second ping.

+1

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:16:09 -0500

Um you are saying that it is now not possible to advance at all? The three
step process has been broken for years but it should not be that broken.

Working Groups are meant to close down, that is the objective: propose some
specs, work on them, shut down.

Lingering WGs are bad for many reasons, not least the fact that some of
them seem to find more work for the purpose of delaying closure. Often this
is work that is simply better not done. This is a particular problem with a
group like PKIX which has established a 'brand' in the industry. Some
vendors feel they have to send people to PKIX just to block new boondoggles
that would be added to the PKIX spec and then be forced to implement. So
even though the mission of PKIX is to maintain PKIX, it can't even close
obvious errors in the protocol because some people will object on
'principle'.

Of course that particular problem is worse due to the $1 billion the US DoD
spent on their PKI.

DNSEXT was set up to address one particular aspect of DNS infrastructure.
Those aspects are done about as well as we can expect.

The areas where the DNS needs to be tweaked are the interface between the
DNS and the application layer. DNSEXT is not well suited to consider that
problem as very few participants in the WG are applications developers.
Shutting down DNSEXT provides an opportunity to recruit a new group of
participants for an effort focused on the application layer.