Re: [dnsext] Authenticated denial of existence...

bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Wed, 20 November 2013 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bmanning@karoshi.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCFF1AE35F for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.725
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ew9eiX5XdNwF for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vacation.karoshi.com (vacation.karoshi.com [198.32.6.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0AF71AE359 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:52:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from karoshi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by vacation.karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id rAK6qL7L008379; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:52:21 GMT
Received: (from bmanning@localhost) by karoshi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id rAK6qLLh008378; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:52:21 GMT
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:52:21 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <20131120065221.GA8367@vacation.karoshi.com.>
References: <CFD6B510-D70E-4308-BF3E-B2E7C2ADCBEB@nominum.com> <20131120055158.GB7117@vacation.karoshi.com.> <E44204A9-6BF0-4D1D-AA83-B6F40C43CD52@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E44204A9-6BF0-4D1D-AA83-B6F40C43CD52@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, "<dnsext@ietf.org> Group" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Authenticated denial of existence...
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:52:29 -0000

 dnsext does exist, its just not meeting.  it (in a perfect world) would be shut down.
 if the "conflict" is DNSEXT (not currently accepting new work, but still existing) and ISE,
 then there is really no other route than ISE, since the WG refuses to take the work on and
 there is no other existent venue.

 e.g. a conflict, but self-imposed by the lack of will to actually shut down a zombie WG.

 IMHO of course.

/bill


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:27:56AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 12:51 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > why do you ask?
> 
> Conflict review.  My impression is the same, and it can be argued that since DNSEXT no longer exists, there can't be a conflict.  But I wanted to bounce it off the list before making that claim, since in principle the work could be done in INTAREA, but would probably be done by people who read this mailing list.
> 
> Thanks!
>