IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

"Rose, Scott W." <scott.rose@nist.gov> Thu, 14 October 2010 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dnsext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232B83A68F8; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.877
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gx637Jfw9-Tg; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D6A3A679C; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1P6M5w-000893-BX for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:35:36 +0000
Received: from rimp2.nist.gov ([129.6.16.227] helo=smtp.nist.gov) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <scott.rose@nist.gov>) id 1P6M5s-00088j-ME for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:35:32 +0000
Received: from WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov (WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov [129.6.18.19]) by smtp.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9EBZLb7005982 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:35:22 -0400
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::41df:f63f:c718:e08]) by WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.19]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:34:50 -0400
From: "Rose, Scott W." <scott.rose@nist.gov>
To: Namedroppers WG <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
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: <2327B25E-584F-44EE-97BE-168F70C4A109@nist.gov>
References: <20101013211518.GD773@shinkuro.com> <B3FF8C96-ADA1-40D2-BAC0-6D41ADBED5CB@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <B3FF8C96-ADA1-40D2-BAC0-6D41ADBED5CB@hopcount.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NIST-MailScanner-From: scott.rose@nist.gov
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
List-Unsubscribe: the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
List-Archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

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.
> 
> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/> 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.  

Scott

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

===================================
Scott Rose
NIST
scottr@nist.gov
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email