Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

"Rose, Scott W." <> Thu, 14 October 2010 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232B83A68F8; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.877
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.722, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gx637Jfw9-Tg; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D6A3A679C; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6M5w-000893-BX for; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:35:36 +0000
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6M5s-00088j-ME for; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:35:32 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9EBZLb7005982 for <>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:35:22 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::41df:f63f:c718:e08]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:34:50 -0400
From: "Rose, Scott W." <>
To: Namedroppers WG <>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:35:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing
Thread-Topic: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing
Thread-Index: Actrk8/8JnWDnj76QGyxCa9I/reOyg==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <>

On Oct 13, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

> On 2010-10-13, at 17:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I note, however, that we have a number of drafts that have been
>> lingering for some time.  This is mostly due to inertia.  Olafur and I
>> therefore propose to use the extra time as a breakout session to nail
>> down whatever changes are still needed in those lingering drafts.  If
>> we can get five committed reviewers for each document in the room, and
>> get the necessary text compromises settled, we can then immediately
>> send them through WGLC, and we would clear our docket.  We think this
>> would be a productive use of the time.
> <> has the following which are not stuck upstream of the working group:
>  draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-06

Kind of waiting for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-03 to advance since it is an ref to draft-registry fixes (and one of the reasons registry-fixes was written).  Don't know if I need a slot to say "waiting for ref to be published".  There was no other discussion on the mailing list that I recall, but correct me if I'm wrong.

>  draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-19

Wouter and I need to rev this (if only to keep it alive).  I think we're still hung up on the whole "What to return when the target name of a DNAME doesn't exist" question (the long thread).  From my reading (as much as I could follow), that was never resolved but spun into larger questions about redirection.

I won't be in Beijing in person, but may participate remotely if possible.  


> Did you mean just those two, or also others?
> Joe

Scott Rose
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671