Re: [dnsext] any interest to move bname forward before dnsext closing down

[Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]>]

On 14:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:18:12AM +0800, Jiankang YAO wrote:
>>
>>    Is there any interest to move bname forward before dnsext closing down
>
> Regardless of the interest, we can't do it in this working group.  Our
> charter said we would complete the study of aliasing before doing
> that, and we haven't completed it.

This is not true, our charter does not say that, our policy was to wait 
for aliasing study before proceeding.
We can at any time change our policy, if the WG ask us to do that.


> Even if we ignored that, our AD
> asked us to be ready to shut down in the spring, and there is zero
> hope that BNAME could be ready for publication by then, since it would
> be necessary to figure out how to make BNAME deployable given the fact
> of deployed DNSSEC and existing validators on the net (the draft as it
> stood at expiration had no answer for this -- it effectively said that
> all the DNSSEC infrastructure on the Internet had to be upgraded
> first).

This is true but to tone is more negative than I like so here is  reword:
Even if the WG decided to take up this work today, considering that we 
are closing down in about 3 months there is little chance that we can 
finalize the protocol spec and do interop testing in order to be able to 
advance this work. The reason we need interop testing is that this work 
requires most DNS resolvers and servers to be updated before
BNAME is useful on its own. We also need to make sure there are no
negative side effects of the deployment hacks to support early BNAME
deployment.


> Unless I missed it, I've never seen a suggestion on how that
> could be solved apart from "online signing", which doesn't seem to me
> to be a real answer.
>

Drop the above, too inflammatory.

> If there were a clear and careful needs analysis (and I believe the
> case could be made without talking about IDN -- website redirection is
> another example), and there were evidence of work being done, I'd

s/I'd/chairs can/

> argue to the AD that the WG was still labouring over this topic and

s/labouring/laboring/

> that it would complete the work.  But in fact, the aliasing
> requirements draft expired, and very little discussion of it took
> place prior to that expiry.

 >  I conclude that there may be interest in
> that work, but not in this working group, so we should stop pretending
> we're going to work on it.
>

Replace by:
We do not see much evidence of interest in this work in the WG,
unless there is interest there is no reason to make commitment to work
on this protocol extension.

	Olafur & Andrew

> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
>