[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence

Dear colleagues, This message starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence, “Compact Denial of Existence in DNSSEC”. Current and previous versions of the draft are available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existe

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-grease

Dear colleagues, This message starts a Call for Adoption for "Greasing Protocol Extension Points in the DNS" (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huque-dnsop-grease/) Meeting materials from discussion of this draft in our first meeting at IETF 119 (19 March 2024) are linked at https://d

[DNSOP]Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-02

Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-02 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-i

[DNSOP]Re: Second (short) WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

10:24 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Colleagues, Back in October 2023, the WG requested publication of "The DNS Zone Version (ZONEVERSION) Option" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/). When our AD reviewed it before taking it to IETF Last Call, he felt there

[DNSOP]Second (short) WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

Colleagues, Back in October 2023, the WG requested publication of "The DNS Zone Version (ZONEVERSION) Option" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/). When our AD reviewed it before taking it to IETF Last Call, he felt there were some issues that needed to be addresse

[DNSOP] Loose ends....Re: [EXTERNAL] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

Colleagues, I (not my co-chairs) neglected to formally close this WGLC. We do find consensus to move forward with draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one. Thanks to everyone who offered comments, and the chairs will work with the authors to address the suggested edits. Suzanne (for the chairs) On

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

Hi, We're leaving this open a few more days to allow for any other comments. We'd like to submit it for publication before IETF 119. Thanks, Suzanne For the chairs On Feb 15, 2024, at 10:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Hi, The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there ha

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one

Hi, The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication. This note starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one.

Re: [DNSOP] [EXTERNAL] AD Review: draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

Warren, authors, and WG: Thanks Warren for being so clear about your concerns with this document. Authors-- Please review Warren's comments. Tim won't be in Prague, but Benno or I would be happy to sit down with you (and Warren if you/he want) to discuss. Once you've had a chance to consider h

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify

& Tim & Benno On Sep 14, 2023, at 10:10 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: Dear colleagues, This note starts a Call for Adoption for draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify. The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify/ Some time in

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify

Dear colleagues, This note starts a Call for Adoption for draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify. The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify/ Some time in the next two weeks, please review this draft to see if you think it

[DNSOP] Loose ends: closing WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02

Dear colleagues, Several weeks ago we opened a WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion. There was not a huge volume of response, but what we heard was strongly positive. The chairs see consensus to move this document on to publication. Thanks to everyone who worked on the draft and commented in th

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion

Colleagues, This email begins a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/). If you've reviewed this document and think it's ready for publication, please let us and the WG know, by responding on-list to this mess

[DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08

Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-08 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-opt

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses" (draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional)

Dear DNSOP WG, Following lengthy discussion, including the latest consultation with the. Working Group on bailiwick and in-domain/sibling name servers terminology, the authors and chairs believe this document is ready for Working Group Last Call. As described earlier, draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bi

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Dear colleagues, After some discussion, the chairs have found we have rough consensus to advance draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. The authors have been considering the WGLC comments and will post a new draft shortly. As we’ve mentioned before, the responsible AD for this draft will be Rob Wilton, as

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Colleagues, This WGLC is closed, with many thanks to everyone who commented. The chairs and editors are reviewing the comments and will summarize in the next few days. Suzanne, for the chairs From: Suzanne Woolf Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 3:26 PM To: "dnsop@ietf.org"

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Dear colleagues, This message will serve to start a Working Group Last Call on “The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain” (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/). Due to the end-of-year holidays, we’re starting it now and will give it four weeks. As you’ve seen from Paul Hof

[DNSOP] Minute-taker Re: DNSOP at IETF 115: meeting details, scribe needed, etc.

And of course we need a minute-taker! Please let the chairs know if you’re available to do this. Suzanne On 11/7/22, 7:07 AM, "Suzanne Woolf" mailto:swo...@pir.org>> wrote: Hi all, DNSOP at IETF 115 will be meeting in the first slot on Tuesday, Nov. 7, at 9:30-11:30 local

[DNSOP] DNSOP at IETF 115: meeting details, scribe needed, etc.

Hi all, DNSOP at IETF 115 will be meeting in the first slot on Tuesday, Nov. 7, at 9:30-11:30 local time. Location on-site is Kensington I, West Wing, Third Floor. The IETF agenda at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/agenda includes links to the WG meeting agenda and other materials, fl

[DNSOP] New agenda, and alt-tld draft at IETF 115

Dear colleagues, Please note the new revision of our agenda for IETF 115 at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/agenda-115-dnsop-01. The main change is that we've added some time for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. The chairs have discussed extensively what to do next with alt-tld, sin

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] no regitry for you, Possible alt-tld last call?

Eliot, On Oct 23, 2022, at 2:15 AM, Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>> wrote: On 23.10.22 05:40, John Levine wrote: It appears that Eliot Lear mailto:l...@lear.ch>> said: As a matter of practicality, a registry surely will be form. It is simply a matter of whether the IANA will host it. If the

[DNSOP] Speculations Re: [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-tld last call?

Not meaning to pick personally on Eliot or Paul, some of these issues are very difficult to separate. > On Oct 17, 2022, at 11:53 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > Let's please leave Internet lawyering to lawyers. If people want a legal > > opinion o

Re: [DNSOP] [EXTERNAL] Possible alt-tld last call?

Hi, > On Oct 16, 2022, at 10:20 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > > 1. As far as I can tell, this draft does not comply with RFC 6761. This is > > a problem for two reasons. > > One could advance the 6761bis propos

[DNSOP] Possible alt-tld last call?

Dear Colleagues, The chairs have gotten a couple of requests, off-list and on, for a WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld. We’ve reviewed the current draft closely and have some concerns that we feel need to be resolved before any effort to move the draft forward. (Suzanne wrote this but it’s bee

[DNSOP] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, again)

Dear colleagues, The chairs have been working for some time on a plan to address the ongoing issues around special use domain names (described in RFC 6761) and the domain namespace. These issues are described in RFC8244 - "Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement"

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation

Dear colleagues, This message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation/). The requested status is BCP. Since we're starting the Last Call during the IETF week, and many folks are on holi

[DNSOP] List conduct (was: Re: DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice)

Colleagues, As some of you have noted, the thread under the subject “DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice” has included some inappropriate posts, not consistent with the IETF Code of Conduct or guidance on keeping the WG mailing list professional and productive. A DNSOP mailing list participant h

[DNSOP] Prep for IETF 113

Dear Colleagues, We've got a couple of notes to share in advance of IETF 113. First, please get your requests for DNSOP agenda time to the chairs as soon as you can. Our preliminary agenda is due to the secretariat by 9 March (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/important-dates/). Not

[DNSOP] Some updates for IETF 112

Dear colleagues, IETF 112 is coming up on us very soon, so we’ve summarized some recent activities here. The draft cutoff for IETF 112 is Oct. 25, midnight UTC, so if you want to submit a new or updated draft, you have a little less than a week. DNSOP meeting slots are: 16:00-18

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] SHA-1 DS algo in arpa. :)

Hi, (Wes and Warren— cc’d as IAB and IESG members, do you guys have any further guidance?) > On Sep 9, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Joe Abley wrote > > The IETF (well, the IAB) has administrative control over the contents of the > ARPA zone. I do not know in practice whether this extends to the machine

Re: [DNSOP] Dropping the draft "The DELEGATION_ONLY DNSKEY flag"

Hi, The chairs have discussed the DELEGATION_ONLY draft extensively. It’s reasonable to ask how we reached the conclusions we did, so here’s what we were thinking. > On Aug 9, 2021, at 4:34 PM, Paul Wouters > wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, Tim Wicinski wrote: > >> Subj

[DNSOP] Fwd: Questions about the used of ISO 3166-1 user defined codes

Dear colleagues, The internet-draft draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld, adopted by the WG late last year, includes text that would create entries in the IANA Special-Use Domain Names registry for certain ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes that have been labeled by the appropriate ISO agency as “user-as

[DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-11

Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements-11 as Best Current Practice on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-require

[DNSOP] Fwd: Third (and final) NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Volunteers

If you’ve got opinions about how the IETF is run, and want to influence its priorities and leaders, please consider adding your name to the pool of potential Nomcom members. The deadline to volunteer for the 2021-2022 Nomcom is next Wednesday. See Gabriel’s email below for details, but for th

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements

t 7:17 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > This message starts the Working Group Last Call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements

Dear colleagues, This message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ ) Since this draft has not been recently dis

[DNSOP] Reminders: IETF 108 DNSOP meeting Wednesday morning UTC

Hi all, The DNSOP meeting at IETF 108 is Wednesday morning UTC: Session 1: 11:00-12:40 UTC, Meetecho Room 3 Session 2: 13:00-13:50 UTC, Meetecho Room 2 URLs for the agenda, meetecho session, meeting materials, and other important resources are linked from the IETF 108 agenda page, https://data

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Dear colleagues, It will be helpful to the chairs in considering the future of this draft if folks could keep a few things in mind as we discuss it. 1. This draft as written takes no formal action to reserve anything for any particular purpose. It makes some observations about the administrati

[DNSOP] Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings

Colleagues, The IETF Executive Director and leadership need community input on how to handle the possibility that future IETF meetings will not be able to proceed in person. Please see below for details on a survey. Thanks, Suzanne > Begin forwarded message: > > From: IETF Executive Direct

[DNSOP] Planning for DNSOP WG and virtual IETF 107

Dear Colleagues, Like you, the DNSOP chairs have been adjusting to recent world events and considering how to continue our work as conditions change. We won’t be together in person in Vancouver this week for IETF 107, but we want to do what we can to provide the usual 3x/year opportunity for

[DNSOP] DNSOP at IETF 107: call for agenda items and key dates

Hi, We’re a few weeks away from IETF 107 in Vancouver, BC, so your chairs are starting to put together the DNSOP meeting. First, this note is our first call for agenda items. Send your requests to dnsop-cha...@ietf.org. The chairs will be reaching out to some draft authors about updates and

[DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-07

Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-07 as Informational on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis/ ___ DNSOP mailing

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements

PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > This message starts the Working Group Last Call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements

Dear colleagues, This message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-tcp-requirements (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements/ ) Since this draft has not been recently dis

[DNSOP] DNSOP at IETF 106: Slides, jabber scribes

Hi all, DNSOP has the usual two slots at IETF 106: Tuesday Nov. 19, 17:10-18:40 local time, Canning Room Thursday Nov. 21, 13:30-15:30 local time, Padang Room We need jabber scribes for both sessions, so please reply to dnsop-cha...@ietf.org if you’re willing. We just ask jabber scribes to keep

[DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-06

Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-06 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale/ ___

Re: [DNSOP] Please review and provide feedback -- draft-stw-6761ext

(Draft author hat here, not WG chair) > On Aug 10, 2019, at 11:36 AM, John Levine wrote: > > In article > you > write: >> Thank you Paul. >> >> As an incentive to everyone else -- there is an Easter Egg hidden in >> this document: if you judiciously choose letters from the text (and >> reor

[DNSOP] Admin note: Change in affiliation

Colleagues, As some of you might have heard, I’ve started a new position with PIR, the operator of the .org TLD. I’m noting this primarily in the interests of transparency, particularly on two points: First, I’m reporting to Joe Abley, CTO of PIR and a regular contributor to DNSOP. It happens

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2019, at 6:36 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> First, there have been several IPR disclosures against this document. The >> chairs believe all have been resolved. > > Please clarify what "The chair

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale

Dear colleagues, This message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale/). Since this draft has not been recently discussed in the WG, we figure people might need to swap it back in, and we will be meetin

[DNSOP] Deadlines for IETF 104 (Prague)

Hi, Just an early reminder that IETF 104 is sooner than you think: the meeting starts on March 23, and we’ll be sending out the call for agenda items in the next few weeks. In particular, note that the “early bird” registration cutoff is Feb. 4; the registration fee goes up after that. (This i

Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

meone reviving Andrew’s draft or writing another one. Suzanne > On Sep 3, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Hi all, > > During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that > draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined it. > This seemed t

Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

Hi, > On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> ... >> >> I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to >> be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale. > > this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS. however

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-06.txt

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > > > > On 09/06/2018 03:14 AM, Shane Kerr wrote: >> All, >> >> On 2018-09-05 20:45, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the

[DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology-bis draft

Hi all, During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined it. This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to fix. It’s also important enough that we want WG review, but not extensive enough to require a new

[DNSOP] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11

Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11 as Best Current Practice on behalf of the DNSOP working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminolog

[DNSOP] Logistics for DNSOP at IETF 102

Hi all, and welcome to IETF 102! DNSOP has two slots: Wednesday morning 9:30-12:00 local time in Montreal (the Laurier room), and Thursday evening 18:10-19:10 (the Place du Canada room). NOTE DIFFERENT ROOMS. Meeting materials, including agendas and drafts, are linked from the usual place: htt

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

that revision. Best, Suzanne (For the chairs) > On Jun 22, 2018, at 4:01 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > Colleagues, > > This begins the working group last call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-10, "DNS Terminology”. The document has > gotten significant fee

[DNSOP] Agenda requests

Hi, We’ve been building the draft agenda from current state on assorted drafts but have been remiss in getting the formal request out, so here it is: please send requests for agenda time in the DNSOP meeting at IETF 102 to dnsop-cha...@ietf.org at your earliest convenience. As usual, we need to

[DNSOP] Draft cutoff: July 2

Hi, For those working to get new internet-drafts posted before IETF 102: the cutoff is 2018-07-02 (Monday), by UTC 23:59. Your chairs will be as available as possible to help with any last-minute glitches in submission, but there’s always a rush at the deadline, so please get your docs shipped

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

Colleagues, This begins the working group last call for draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-10, "DNS Terminology”. The document has gotten significant feedback and the editors have worked hard to document current terminology usage, both among practitioners and for broader audiences; we’d like to

[DNSOP] Complexity and innovation in the DNS protocol: the work of DNSOP

Hi, The chairs have been discussing next steps after IETF 101, particularly the very lively WG input on the complexity and stability of the DNS protocol. There are many aspects to the questions that came up. Some are not going to be resolved within the IETF or the standards process, but it soun

Re: [DNSOP] Responsible AD for KSK-Sentinel - Terry Manderson

Warren, Thanks for clarifying this for the WG. For those who don’t like to worry about process, just note that Warren has done the right thing to head off any potential process issue with having the same person acting as both an editor of the document and the Area Director responsible for man

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi, Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to separate comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments on WG guidelines for future documents. > On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Wa

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

On Mar 28, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:55:13AM -0400, tjw ietf wrote: >> I would say that most things we have adopted in the past few years do have >> some implementations to reference. >> Not when drafts are adopted, but generally before we head to WG

[DNSOP] New WG for document/protocol cleanup? Re: Current DNS standards, drafts & charter

Note this discussion has started to split into (at least) two: cleaning up the DNS standard (protocol, documents, or both), possibly in a new WG; and whether/how the existing DNSOP WG needs to adjust its efforts. > On Mar 27, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Hi Suzanne, > >> If the W

Re: [DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter

Hi all, First, thanks for running with this. Top-posting a couple of process observations: First, the chairs are always open to discussion of what documents belong in the WG, interpretation/revision of our charter, etc. There’s a certain amount of process to be observed, especially if we want

[DNSOP] General status IETF 101

Hi all, Thanks for several hours of useful discussion on the usual assortment of topics at IETF 101 last week! We’ll have minutes posted (thanks Paul Hoffman for taking them, and turning them in promptly) and followup actions identified in the next few days. I just talked to Tim— he’s home and

[DNSOP] DNSOP Session II at IETF 101: proxy co-chair, jabber scribe & slides

Hi all, As you probably saw from Tim’s email overnight, he’s injured his knee and his priority today is getting medical attention for it. But Session II is under control and we’ll convene at 18:10-19:10 this evening in the Sandringham room, with a proxy Tim if needed. We do still need a jabber

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Hi all, We’ve let the discussion continue because it’s been so active, but we also haven’t forgotten we need to review and determine next steps on this draft. Thanks for the lively discussion, and we’ll have followup shortly. Suzanne & Tim > On Jan 22, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Suzanne Woolf

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02

Hi all, This is the opening of the Working Group Last Call for "Let 'localhost' be localhost” (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-let-localhost-be-localhost-02.txt). We’ll end it in two weeks, on February 5, 2018. Please focus feedback on: Is this draft ready to go to the IESG for approv

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Dear colleagues, In our meeting earlier today at IETF 100, Geoff presented on this draft. (Slides are at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-dnsop-sessa-draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel/

Re: [DNSOP] Remarks about draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00

On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal-00 proposes to reserve .internal for > RFC1918-like domain names. There is clearly a strong demand for that. > (There is also a strong demand for happy sex, great food, excellent > wines and diamong rings, but

Re: [DNSOP] ICANN Name collision framework

Hi, On Aug 19, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > (Sorry if you have received more than 1 copy of this e-mail, since this is > being sent to technical mailing lists focusing on DNS) > > There is ongoing policy development effort within ICANN towards subsequent > procedures of new gTLDs

Re: [DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question

George, > On Jul 20, 2017, at 1:00 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > I probably will not carry the WG with me on this, but I find myself > thinking the PII aspect of client-ID makes it a wider-internet > question and we might have views as a WG, and promote questions as a > WG, but I think the "f

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz

Hi, On 7/18/17 8:32 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: I'm fine with Informational document describing the existing version of RPZ. My hope that working on that as WG item will help to improve the text so it is unambiguous. Improvements to the protocol can be done later on. Thank you-- this is exactly th

[DNSOP] still need jabber scribe and minute taker

Hi, We still need jabber scribe and minute taker volunteers for the DNSOP meeting in the next time slot, 15:50-17:50 today. If you don't volunteer now, we'll just have to ask again in the meeting much thanks, your chairs ___ DNSOP mailing li

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz

ppropriate to publish it as an ISE document. This is what has been done in similar cases in the past. On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Suzanne Woolf <mailto:suzworldw...@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear colleagues, As you might recall, we had a call for adoption for draft-vixie-

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz

Dear colleagues, As you might recall, we had a call for adoption for draft-vixie-dns-rpz just before IETF 98 in March. We had a lively discussion and decided to adopt the document for further work in the WG as an Informational RFC. However, the chairs then discovered we’d made a mistake in a

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

(not sure which hat. Probably doc shepherd.) > On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages? or >> is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to kill >> som

[DNSOP] IETF 99: Call for agenda items, and draft cutoff reminder

Hi all, IETF 99 is advancing rapidly upon us…. DNSOP has two sessions scheduled in the preliminary agenda, Tuesday 15:50-17:50 and Thursday 18:10-19:10. In the interests of managing that time well, we’d like to hear from you ASAP if you’re asking for agenda time. As always— we’ll prioritize wo

[DNSOP] extended deadline Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400, > Suzanne Woolf wrote > a message of 92 lines which said: > >> This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: >> >> "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ >&

Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

Hi, On one specific point: > On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:02 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that > any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why > this draft is special, against that letter. You make a compelling a

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 27, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 27/03/2017 02:52, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> One important part is in the letter from NTIA (Karen Rose) to ICANN >> (Louis Touton) in Appendix A. >> >> A letter sent April 28, 2000. > > Is it online? I can't find it in the ICA

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Ozgur Karatas wrote: > > Hello, > > 22.03.2017, 10:05, "Jim Reid" : >>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >>> >>> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > the last updated was made in 2013,

[DNSOP] scribes, slides, and other logistics for DNSOP WG meeting at IETF 98

Hi all, Our meeting is Monday this time: DNSOP 13:00-15:00, room Zurich D If you’re presenting, your slide deck should be visible at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/materials. If you sent us slides and they’re not there, please remind us ASAP; if you didn’t send us slides, plea

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> Hi Ray, >> >>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: >>> >>> I consider them to be _independent_. The sp

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

Hi Ray, > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > > I consider them to be _independent_. The special use reservation > mustn't be held up waiting for the requested insecure delegation. I’m trying to make sure I understand what the special use reservation accomplishes in the absence o

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-homenet-dot review limits Re: .arpa

Hi all, and not picking on John…. I think this subthread on process and policy has gone as far as we reasonably can in a DNSOP review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot. We’ve established that different constraints and expectations apply to policy for different portions of the namespace, and that the HO

Re: [DNSOP] .arpa

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> >> RFC 3172 was written in 2001… > > RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym: Address > and Routing Parameter Area - reall

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Jim, In the interests of preserving a distinction here that I believe is important: > On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > >> On 21 Mar 2017, at 13:54, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> Suggesting we postpone .homenet while figuring out a new IETF/ICANN >> process, something that can t

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

> On Mar 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Ralph Droms wrote: > >> If draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03 specified homenet.arpa, the IETF could assign >> as many different names as wanted for different scoping scenarios, without >> interacting with ICANN for each assi

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

little more, below. > On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > > [also speaking as individual only] > >> I see no justification in draft-ietf-homenet-dot for a single-label name, >> except an implicit suggestion

Re: [DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, No hats, except DNS/names geek who has spent a lot of time talking with policy people about why and how the root zone is (and isn’t) special. > On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Ted: > >> There are other processes for adding names to the root zone. In my opinion, >> u

[DNSOP] WG review of draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03

Hi, The INT Area Director who oversees the homenet WG, Terry Manderson, has asked DNSOP participants to review https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-homenet-dot-03.txt , "Special Use Top Level Domain '.homenet’”, with the following aspects in

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

Hi, Per assorted comments in this thread….a couple of observations from one WG chair. It’s my sense at least that the WG was clear that there’s some interest in publishing an informational document about RPZ, given that it’s widely deployed and considered useful by certain admins in certain si

[DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld

This message opens a Working Group Last Call for: "The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ Intended status: Proposed Standard Per the discussion in our interim meeting a couple o

Re: [DNSOP] call for agenda items, IETF 98

Hi, This is a good point, thanks Paul. If you’re an editor on a WG document, please consider what you need from the WG to get it ready for a Working Group Last Call. If you’re missing reviews/reviewers, the chairs/secretary are happy to help you find some. If you need input from the WG, pleas

[DNSOP] call for agenda items, IETF 98

Hi, Several folks have already spoken with us, but this is the official call for agenda items for the DNSOP WG meeting at IETF 98 in Chicago. The preliminary agenda has DNSOP meeting on Monday afternoon, March 27, 13:00-15:00 local time. As usual, we’re likely to prefer agenda time for workin

  1   2   3   >