IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 09 October 2019 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0923C12008A for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fb2Le0TVlwVg for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B49B12004C for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 15:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id 4so3784934qki.6 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=YcgpYFDF3NOj2vdLHXRgyHEnoiIl6XfKxUjxLWnEf3A=; b=qT0VCP92KrzeKulaf5dCDn++PECsBS03omwy31aLGc6noI2wtfwEwsRemJDQOfXAtI UmRBZhzlLWNwmnvaLVsdmBlnvwzdeIVxGzF1pydVgc4lPX186ALTOzNYUSG+4HwHGx1e XoH2MyUheW8qH4zft+iiPfHCEsBG/XHApRjQDBK0mJcuJ8QtaDHvpOSFc/BxlFH0GFxi tNeYiTwmdsd/9NkQiAtxImEnvALMGb8gODe2ivhD1XUnEGTgTgVffAEIGNOR/EMtI/WP hjKK/o02Qqy0M2TmtQilSGBdLK68r2oqEqQJwfuCgdivfLwLr5znGbGbMn2vWRUCY7rU 9EKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=YcgpYFDF3NOj2vdLHXRgyHEnoiIl6XfKxUjxLWnEf3A=; b=Asx8PDIPK4jlX6998XiezVx5WgKVdkXfxQExpCnlpS9HJ/Ai9Kok49PbqVznyNaWKI 1pnrvrQwVkgd2ATRft7TG7OPAUxBodjcnoearRJxT198/MW1Bfic8/SOHuvvYLa6gxFG CoWa281ecnA2gGl8QrCjNDOCFCaSIdiHbzEfTwA70Fo8BMnt1VLlM0KrUCvMP4lEp+TU Tfs5NLxV3bUNuWNGiNaW1vlvE3WgxOy+kRB9Oy88jpMUoGtKe4XeuUhMRpQ4BFxCod2J P4XPtMlTeaQb+3eWuqXzrv11f27Wf+UL06/JqOCAesfaeEIBba6x4ibJHsfzgp0wN/kf JaJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW+m/JpVPX6g0wEpGTasIc7Tz66Jt/rso3UOLqKsjeqOCtJNEfg OSHz0xATzG2rWmlb+fAFfbQWhdQLm1k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzGr8DFHDJuMqZDOX6yDWnIntg7FHgJH4hEF0H2aJqp+M/yPr9wDLTZh2W/FVLxhVAMc5QF5A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:a8e:: with SMTP id v14mr6338435qkg.215.1570660883605; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.100.56] (c-73-186-137-119.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.186.137.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v12sm2059699qtb.5.2019.10.09.15.41.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 18:41:22 -0400
Message-Id: <D7B846D5-A4B1-4CFF-9718-5E8A8D4F7286@fugue.com>
References: <A904161A-1B02-4A9E-8AA2-D2CC0FEA6A07@rfc1035.com>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, add@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <A904161A-1B02-4A9E-8AA2-D2CC0FEA6A07@rfc1035.com>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A850)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/W36Vr4IBHMtsZ4bQxHFZHUOow9Y>
Subject: Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 22:41:27 -0000

Isn’t there already a DHCPv6 option for split horizon DNS?  ISTR being dragooned as a co-author on that one. 

> On Oct 9, 2019, at 17:47, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2019, at 21:24, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> It is relevant, because if we believe the only thing that is needed is
>> a DHCP option, then we do not need to spin up a working group.
> 
> Well the draft charter says:
> 
> Specific initial areas of focus include but are not limited to:
> 
> - Resolver discovery and selection
> - Expression of resolver policy
> - Support for split-horizon DNS environments
> - Mechanisms to facilitate testing of new configurations
> 
> Only the first item on that list looks is if it could somehow touch on DHCP. And even then it might only have an impact on DHCP if the current discovery draft in the doh WG fails to deliver. So no, a DHCP option is not the only thing that’s needed IMO.
> 
> I would also hope we can agree to take an objective, evidence-based approach rather than one which is based on subjective matters of belief.
> 
> -- 
> Add mailing list
> Add@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email