Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

"Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)" <> Thu, 14 October 2010 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1999A3A685B; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1cQyLvAbtMw4; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0203A6832; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6Dr4-000LzY-VP for; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:47:42 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1P6Dr1-000LzH-V8 for; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:47:40 +0000
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEFAIYMtkyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACgVUwCcaEQnF+FSASKQYMJgmCBfg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,328,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="200443612"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2010 02:47:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9E2lcPS017606; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:47:38 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:47:37 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:47:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing
References: <> <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thread-Topic: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing
Thread-Index: ActrSihnMW0dTg9FSjaIXe4707KdXw==
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:48:11 +0200
To: "Ted Hardie" <>
Cc: "Andrew Sullivan" <>, <>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8B117)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2010 02:47:37.0891 (UTC) FILETIME=[298ADF30:01CB6B4A]
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 13 okt 2010, at 23:52, "Ted Hardie" <>; 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.


> 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 <>; 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
>> Shinkuro, Inc.