Re: [dnsext] Meeting in Beijing

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

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