Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

["Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)" <[e-mail]>]

On 13 okt 2010, at 23:52, "Ted Hardie" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would like to see time for discussion of paf's recent draft.

I think a discussion would be healthy. I will though not be in Beijing but will participate remotely.

   Patrik

> There has been reasonable list traffic to support having
> a face-to-face meeting discussion, but I don't think it
> falls into your "5 reviewers and WGLC" bucket, because
> at least one counter proposal has come in.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm still chewing over his responses to
> the issues I raised.  I feel like the basic approach, "some firm
> description of the service is needed" is a point at which we
> agree.  But the registration methodology has its limits,
> as we have seen in many other URI-related registries.
> They are so easy to mint that it is hard to capture the ones in use,
> much less advise on their creation.  My tea leaves say the
> same problem will happen here if this method gets any popularity at
> all
> 
> I'm not sure yet what to suggest, but if we have extra time in the
> meeting schedule, I'm sure I would benefit from hearing others' thoughts
> on the problem space.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> At the moment, we have a very light agenda for the Beijing meeting.
>> These are the items for which we've received requests:
>> 
>> 1.  A brief presentation on a DNSSEC history wiki (with a solitication
>> for participation).
>> 
>> 2.  A discussion of draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00.
>> 
>> 3.  A discussion of draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-0[1|2].
>> 
>> We'd like people to treat (3) as though it's a WG draft.  Assuming the
>> charter we sent to the IESG gets approved, that document will
>> automatically become a WG document by virtue of the charter adoption.
>> We're being careful not to step out of process, however, and as of
>> right now, the document isn't strictly speaking on charter.
>> 
>> Our feeling is that a meeting of this sort can be completed within an
>> hour or so.  However, we find ourselves at the moment with a much
>> longer slot (currently, Wed. morning, for 2 1/2 hours.  We didn't ask
>> for that much; it is apparently mostly to deal with scheduling
>> difficulties).
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> If you have objections to this plan, please let us know.  If you do
>> not so object, we'll take that as an indication that the plan sounds
>> sensible.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Andrew and Olafur.
>> 
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> [e-mail]
>> Shinkuro, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>