[dnsext] [twalsh <at> juniper.net: FW: Nomcom 2010-11: Final Call for Volunteers]

Dear colleagues,

Just a reminder that the NomCom is still looking for volunteers.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs <at> shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

From: Thomas Walsh <twalsh <at> juniper.net>
Subject: FW: Nomcom 2010-11: Final Call for Volunteers
Date: 2010-07-04 19:21:55 GMT

Please read the forwarded message below.  

It describes the Final Call for Volunteers for the 2010-11 Nomcom. We could still use another 10-20 volunteers.

The IETF nominating committee appoints folks to fill the open slots on the IAOC, the IAB, and the IESG. The 10
nominating committee members are selected randomly from a pool of volunteers. The more volunteers, the
better chance we have of choosing a random yet representative cross section of the IETF population.  The
details of the operation of the nomcom can be found in RFC 3777.  

[dnsext] Reminder: draft charter was posted for discussion

Dear colleagues,

This is a reminder that we posted some time ago a new draft charter
for the WG.  We've had very little feedback on it.  Two of the
responses asked for us to move the timelines; I have resisted those
calls, but I wonder whether others think more aggressive timelines to
be reasonable.

I attach it again here for your convenience.  I have not yet made the
editorial changes suggested by one eagle-eyed reviewer (off list).

This topic will take a considerable chunk of the time we have
scheduled in Maastricht.  The charter represents our commitments to
the rest of the IETF.

If you have opinions on it, it would be nice to hear them.  We expect
to discuss this in Maastricht and then send it along to our AD,
barring any changes.

Best, 

Andrew

--

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs <at> shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

DRAFT charter for DNSEXT, 2010-05-28.  SUBJECT TO CHANGE

[dnsext] xNAME RCODE clarification adoption?

Dear colleagues,

We have received a request that the WG adopt
draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-02.txt and make some decisions about
it.

We ask participants to express their support or non-support of
adoption of the document.  The usual conventions apply: five
participants must express their support, their view that the document
is on-charter, and their willingness to review.

We will have some time to discuss the document and next steps when in
Maastricht.

Best regards,

A

--

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs <at> shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

[dnsext] Adoption of draft-dempsky-dnscurve-01

Dear colleagues,

We received a request to adopt draft-dempsky-dnscurve-01 as a WG item.  

Some have suggested that such an adoption is not consistent with our
existing charter.  The chairs take no position at the moment on the
correctness of that assertion, but note that the draft charter
previously circulated contains language that would explicitly put this
work under the (new) charter.

We ask WG participants who want this work adopted to express their
support of the work, their view that it is on-charter, and their
willingness to review the work.  The usual conventions requiring five
such reviewers apply.

There will be time in the Maastricht meeting to discuss this item.

Best regards,

Andrew

--

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs <at> shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

[dnsext] Draft agenda for IETF78

Dear colleagues,

I have uploaded a draft agenda for IETF78.  You can see it at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/dnsext.txt.

The agenda, despite the time we have reserved, is pretty full.  If you
have things you want to add to this agenda, please contact me as soon
as possible.  Earlier requests will get priority over later requests.

Best regards,

Andrew

--

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs <at> shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

Re: [dnsext] Reminder: draft charter was posted for discussion

At 2:06 PM -0400 7/5/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>This is a reminder that we posted some time ago a new draft charter
>for the WG.  We've had very little feedback on it.  Two of the
>responses asked for us to move the timelines; I have resisted those
>calls, but I wonder whether others think more aggressive timelines to
>be reasonable.

More aggressive timelines are possible for the aliasing work, given that if no consensus is possible, the
work could just be killed. They are not possible for things that are supposed to be done.

Current:
June 2010       RFC3597-bis Unknown RR advanced to IESG for PS
July 2010       DNSKEY Registry fixes and allocation procedure advanced to IESG
July 2010       DNSSEC Errata document to IESG
Sept 2010       EDNS0-bis update advanced to IESG
Dec  2010       TSIG/MD5 Obsoleting to IESG
Dec  2010       IXFR-only to IESG
July 2011       WG consensus on new or revised RRTYPEs for DNS tree aliasing
                         work
July 2011       Interoperation testing on new or revised RRTYPEs for
                DNS tree aliasing (particularly with existing deployed code)
Nov  2011       Document on new RRTYPE or revised RRTYPE handling for
                         DNS tree aliasing to IESG
Nov  2011       Document on in-zone metadata for DNS tree aliasing to IESG
Nov  2011       Document on uses and limitations of different DNS tree
                         aliasing techniques to IESG

Proposed:
Aug  2010       RFC3597-bis Unknown RR advanced to IESG for PS
Aug  2010       DNSKEY Registry fixes and allocation procedure advanced to IESG

Re: [dnsext] Reminder: draft charter was posted for discussion

Hi esteemed co-chair, folks,
  Speaking from an ENUM perspective, I trust that the EDNS0-bis draft
can hit the IESG in this timeframe (i.e. a month's time from now).

We were going to put in a specific requirement into ENUM for EDNS0
support, but withdrew this as a general dnsext document was coming.

I for one would be happy to avoid having to add an ENUM-specific doc.

As a datum, we have NAPTR-reading client programs that use EDNS0 by
default and have not heard of widespread problems -- lord knows some
of the .tel domains have large RRsets, and that is also true for some
of the ENUM domains I've seen. It sure is time to make this mandatory.

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 5 Jul 2010, at 19:06, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> This is a reminder that we posted some time ago a new draft charter
> for the WG.  We've had very little feedback on it.  Two of the
> responses asked for us to move the timelines; I have resisted those
> calls, but I wonder whether others think more aggressive timelines to
> be reasonable.
> 
> I attach it again here for your convenience.  I have not yet made the
> editorial changes suggested by one eagle-eyed reviewer (off list).
> 
> This topic will take a considerable chunk of the time we have

Re: [dnsext] xNAME RCODE clarification adoption?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs <at> shinkuro.com>
To: <namedroppers <at> ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:11 AM
Subject: [dnsext] xNAME RCODE clarification adoption?


> Dear colleagues,
> 
> We have received a request that the WG adopt
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-02.txt and make some decisions about
> it.
> 
> We ask participants to express their support 

+1

Re: [dnsext] Adoption of draft-dempsky-dnscurve-01

On 2010-07-05 20:22, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> We received a request to adopt draft-dempsky-dnscurve-01 as a WG item.  
> 
> Some have suggested that such an adoption is not consistent with our
> existing charter.

Would it be possible to elaborate a little on that? Can you perhaps
point me to those opinions? I'd like to know what the arguments where.

> The chairs take no position at the moment on the
> correctness of that assertion, but note that the draft charter
> previously circulated contains language that would explicitly put this
> work under the (new) charter.

Is the URL below the new charter?

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/charter/

In that case I can only agree with the above that the work is
on-charter. Furthermore I'd like to express my provisional support for
it as well as my willingness to participate in reviewing it to the best
of my abilities.

> We ask WG participants who want this work adopted to express their
> support of the work, their view that it is on-charter, and their
> willingness to review the work.  The usual conventions requiring five
> such reviewers apply.

Regards,

Re: [dnsext] xNAME RCODE clarification adoption?

I support the adoption of this doc.  I think it is necessary for the advancement of dname-bis.

Scott

On Jul 5, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> We have received a request that the WG adopt
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-02.txt and make some decisions about
> it.
> 
> We ask participants to express their support or non-support of
> adoption of the document.  The usual conventions apply: five
> participants must express their support, their view that the document
> is on-charter, and their willingness to review.
> 
> We will have some time to discuss the document and next steps when in
> Maastricht.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs <at> shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
>