IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dd] starting charter text for the DELEG BOF discussion

Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io> Wed, 06 March 2024 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@desec.io>
X-Original-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F9BC14F748 for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:31:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=a4a.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BP42XX1vzEqG for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.a4a.de (mail.a4a.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:10a:1d5c:8000::8]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC469C14F6BD for <dd@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:31:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a4a.de; s=20170825; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=fiAP8tyWkBjuxJJPzrlj8fl+zmiKSYbmzjkSWg6mXzg=; b=gWwXE8YDVnX5raTS5lBmbbKwOh 2Pu6bzaax2n0Vx8w2stH+rId1xYz5V8gZ27h3PU8KcfOyP5WCFmIx+NZrtNaVXqDnt8g3RazmZOGt Ids8/tKcbSy+ertLDR2hey7o+BbeKXyp/Y2Af7cy+hUL5LfOPNgN/pxooHnoq2RHlmSudAyrMLq74 5kw1MV8FLTsxcEa3lasM52iC0FMh+bbfpdibqNbfw1yiaQtndJ+sMB2IRQ3bYlwGWTkCjEQ2eVDX4 v1M89ca52/HQJQmjH7d8uxLoQ1sKWhnF6htGE78YLouvI9liYO0FvWUZeSNf6W3bqDnhE0ki7rnGU +OqtGSpQ==;
Received: from 66-50-79-98.prtc.net ([66.50.79.98] helo=[172.20.21.45]) by mail.a4a.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <peter@desec.io>) id 1rhivu-008LTC-0A; Wed, 06 Mar 2024 05:31:10 +0100
Message-ID: <0a7ab12c-62ce-46bc-9afa-973fe944e7c1@desec.io>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:31:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, dd@ietf.org
References: <yblbk7wl65k.fsf@wx.hardakers.net>
From: Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io>
In-Reply-To: <yblbk7wl65k.fsf@wx.hardakers.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dd/61DhkmbEJaZtlOWfbUnCxGqfOks>
Subject: Re: [dd] starting charter text for the DELEG BOF discussion
X-BeenThere: dd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Delegation <dd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dd>, <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dd>, <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 04:31:30 -0000

Hi,

The charter looks mostly good to me, and I support the feedback expressed in this thread so far (specifically: don't assume order of deliverables; mention transport as a potential (!) goal).

Further:

On 3/2/24 16:39, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> # Deliverables
> 
> - A document listing the consensus-derived requirements
[...]
> may remain as an Internet-draft.
> 
> - A document listing, and ideally prioritizing, new delegation attributes
[...]
> may remain as an Internet-draft.
> 
> - A specification defining the new delegation attribute signaling mechanism.
> This is expected to become a standards-track RFC.
> 
> - A specification for how to use the new delegation attribute signaling mechanism to perform aliasing for delegation.
> This is expected to become a standards-track RFC.

This sounds like there will be exactly 2 RFCs.

In my view, the WG should have the freedom to take on additional standards track work (e.g., a draft for some another set of attributes if there's consensus that that would make sense). I'm not sure if the current wording would exclude that?

Thanks,
Peter

-- 
https://desec.io/

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status