Re: [dnsext] DNSEXT closing down soon

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Second ping.

Thanks,
Donald

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> If I recall correctly, there was significant support for
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode
> In fact, looking back, there was a WG Last Call issued on this draft
> on April 13th of this year with favorable responses.
>
> Can this be advanced?
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> The chairs have been asked by the AD's to prepare the working group
>> for closing early next year.
>>
>> Before the working group closes we need to complete the drafts that
>> are on our charter.
>>
>> Here is the list of current open milestones:
>>  Apr 2011       RFC3597-bis Unknown RR advanced to IESG for PS
>>  Jun 2011       EDNS0-bis update advanced to IESG
>>  Aug 2011       Algorithm signaling document to IESG
>>  Oct 2011       DNSSEC Errata document to IESG
>>  Nov 2011       Decision about new protocol elements, if any
>>  Nov 2011       Requirements and current state survey document to IESG
>>            for publication
>>  Dec 2011       IXFR-only to IESG
>>
>> As you can see we are far behind schedule thus we propose the
>> following milestones
>>  Dec 2011  DNSSEC-errata document to IESG
>>  Jan 2012  RFC3597-bis To IESG for standard
>>  Jan 2012  EDNS0-bis update to IESG
>>  Feb 2012  IXFR-Only to IESG
>>  Feb 2012  Algorithm signaling document to IESG
>>  Mar 2012  Close down Working group
>>
>> Note that this removes the aliasing work from the work plan.  The
>> draft is currently expired, and there was not general agreement about
>> whether to wait on input from the current ICANN work on variants at
>> the TLD (but apparently we did wait).  Since ICANN's project is not
>> scheduled to complete before February of 2012, we can't realistically
>> expect to complete a requirements document before March.  So we are
>> planning not to complete that work item.  It is not clear whether a WG
>> that is closing with unfinished business needs to recharter as a
>> formal step; we're looking into that, and will return with an answer.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Olafur and Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnsext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext