headers
Olaf Kolkman | 1 Jan 2007 08:35
Picon
Favicon

DNSEXT list policy


- List Purpose

  namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org is the mailing list for the IETF DNSEXT
  working group.  

  See <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsext-charter.html> for the
  wg charter.  Messages should be on topics appropriate to the dnsext
  wg, which are various discussion of the DNS protocols or
  administrivia of the WG itself.

- Specific items that are not not appropriate for posting

  Calls for papers, announcements of events not directly relevant to
  the DNS protocols, etc. are not appropriate.  

  Discussion of problems with particular implementations,
  announcements of releases, sites' misconfigurations, pleas for help
  with specific implementations, etc.  should be done on mailing lists
  for the particular implementations.

  There is a working group for dns operational practice, DNSOP, whose
  charter can be found at
  <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html>. Items
  relevant to the DNSOP charter are to be discussed on the DNSOP
  mailinglist.

  Discussion about the quality of implementations is outside the scope
  of this list.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair | 2 Jan 2007 18:17

Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document


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 namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Paul Vixie | 2 Jan 2007 19:35

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

> 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.

no.

> 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.

so indicated.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair | 2 Jan 2007 20:08

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

At 12:17 02/01/2007, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT wrote:

>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

correction:
s/now/no/


>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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Matt Larson | 2 Jan 2007 20:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> 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.

I am against the WG adopting this document.

> 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.

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

Matt

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Halley | 3 Jan 2007 01:02

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
> 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.
No.
> 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.
I do not object to informational/experimental status.

/Bob

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Otmar Lendl | 3 Jan 2007 09:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: 2929bis RRTYPE Allocation for the ENUM Branch Location Record


Update:

On 2006/12/11 13:12, Otmar Lendl <lendl <at> nic.at> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 	  DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
> 
> Date: 
> 
>   2006/12/11
> 
> Originator: 
> 
>   Otmar Lendl <otmar.lendl <at> enum.at>, +43 1 5056416 33
> 
> Specification: 
> 
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record-01

Based on internal feedback, I've rewritten the explanatory text. It now
should be clearer what parts of the DDDS algorithm are amended and
thus how the EBL fits into the overall ENUM protocol. 

No changes have been made to the actual specification.

The current version can be found at:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-enum-branch-location-record-02
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Andrew Sullivan | 3 Jan 2007 16:13

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

Dear colleagues,

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 12:17:19PM -0500, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
> 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 I noted before, I concluded that the document should not become a
working group document.

> 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.

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
<andrew <at> ca.afilias.info>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: ajsaf <at> jabber.org                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request <at> ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Edward Lewis | 3 Jan 2007 17:12
Favicon

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian Wellington | 3 Jan 2007 23:47

Re: Adopt DNSSEC SO as WG document

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT  co-chair wrote:

> 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.

I vote no.

> 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.

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

Brian
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane