Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Thu, 14 October 2010 18:30 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 4EA443A69AD; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.953
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 U0klb4DLaaK7; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04223A698B; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1P6SVo-000MCm-S0 for namedroppers-data0@psg.com; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:26:44 +0000
Message-Id: <E1P6SVo-000MCm-S0@psg.com>
Received: from qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.40]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mstjohns@comcast.net>) id 1P6SVl-000MCM-Tk for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:26:42 +0000
Received: from omta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.20]) by qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id JhEX1f0050SCNGk54iShPd; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:26:41 +0000
Received: from Mike-PC3.comcast.net ([68.83.217.57]) by omta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id JiSg1f00C1EtFYL3ViSgxt; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:26:41 +0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:26:29 -0400
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>,namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <20101013211518.GD773@shinkuro.com>
References: <20101013211518.GD773@shinkuro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_49421069==.ALT"
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/>

Probably not an agenda item, but what is happening with draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-11? -12?  It seems to have expired with no replacement.  

Mike



At 05:15 PM 10/13/2010, 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
>ajs@shinkuro.com
>Shinkuro, Inc.