[DNSOP] summary: virtual interim meeting, 16 Feb. 2017

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B0C129A1A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:28:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibqAGuGoc-Mr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB0E51299EB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id n127so36340345qkf.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:28:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=yMLuR/Q2JdLOhYPy+m5mzyYZXjxp+UwhL5qtUgXGDvA=; b=Q22CzOExwB97Niv+yrPRJkKeJk0me5Ags5nV39BiyvoYdCaa5WGkidxF9f0mqm6+lg MxuXYdPlA/rCw/lEuUe0IvmRA4JvWCTvYpWaDqoyJGCwbXj+ZMrZlXEoiGrviRCa7eq7 sPusnl7w/VS+BEGmATi3bcwoNQuHNvkozgfFoDelw+Xqr0CzyzhB5qM3IMXno2Cy/NAc juODhTbQnAIw0gFTTnTnYjV6wt83Z5Wmu6L8NJRw8r+n2Hf3AfFsI7fShDlMDQFNkF6g kIfaeZxYCmx6vClTGeYnp0k6cRNaLvIfOe41oMPEVTkUyXEXIA8B0r/qdd/QQY2imV7Q qd+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=yMLuR/Q2JdLOhYPy+m5mzyYZXjxp+UwhL5qtUgXGDvA=; b=SVuM056+UXbrJuB/oV/X8iH0AVzfknUU2mwArUFutDKDD6zVkdiTzR38yqVsIbkFTx sfQcqvoTHMyad6Zpy74GOaSLtxrdXUEkdWeC4xqMGjdWkuqAhn4tTfoXLXDsvoaMmE8z SkILbOogQ4BhRnn8kSpTmwAfZwfx1WHYHxtFhD6pmaPqZY+Cqu2F2tDfylHCyGYPtBwS 3+5VC39KISAFpzQTTcXCkcrBeWhTuh6v5JcwCyFPjHyHac7L52mVQWx4198RBaX3/B4j vjKSpjnWUILaQFJb1ydJ5E50243rIBNj3uge+nVo4Ua3AUKxbAb/vUce4ozSfdubLbFm P1zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k1Wnh8PfPc3Kyf2btInfqs9UPE2uKuv5lJI/a1V1VP00FtRmT4f8lk4l5gp3I+FA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id t66mr18493328qkc.182.1487867283467; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:181:c381:c20:c43c:1d42:40e2:60bd? ([2601:181:c381:c20:c43c:1d42:40e2:60bd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x125sm2987983qkd.17.2017. for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:28:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_89039BFE-57D4-4521-A7A9-1A27CCFFDBA3"
Message-Id: <6CCF192E-6D67-4121-80F9-DDA8637B249D@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:28:01 -0500
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/23_KtO4BLQP9vZMFwA75FKEKYV8>
Subject: [DNSOP] summary: virtual interim meeting, 16 Feb. 2017
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:28:06 -0000


The chairs’ summary from the WG virtual interim meeting last week appears below.

Recording of the webex session: 

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=09e87536cf71661d1e4e7339abcf001e <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=09e87536cf71661d1e4e7339abcf001e>

Chairs’ summary of the discussion

1. sutld-ps WGLC:
	* editors are resolving issues, quite a few have been raised and most are straightforward to resolve
	* distinction between special use names generally and “TLDs” needs to be clear, also distinction between names to be resolved with DNS and names to be resolved otherwise
	* Question came up of where we stand process-wise, particularly if the IETF or IESG change or don't publish the problem statement. There's been no commitment to publish it, but the roadmap that blocked other action on having one was discussed multiple times with our AD; and even if we don’t publish it, the exercise has been useful for the WG
	* Future action may not occur in DNSOP at all; that’s largely up to the IESG.

2. alt-tld:
	* mostly done; we know what it will and won’t do, and there was agreement that more distinction needs to be made in the document
	* as discussed on the list, consensus seems to be against asking for a signed delegation in the root for .alt
	* open issue discussed here was whether to add .alt to the locally-served zones registry; consensus on the call seemed to be not to do that either; editors will propose text to wrap up both issues. Some people felt the justification for the latter should be in a “Security Considerations,” others felt it should be in a “Privacy Considerations”.

3. next steps
	* no one is ready to propose concrete next steps beyond “find out what the IESG thinks”
	* some people feel this topic isn’t DNSOP WG business, because there are technical issues but they won’t be resolved within the scope of the WG charter; a few feel it’s a “layer violation” that has nothing to do with the IETF, because it’s intrinsically and entirely political.
	* some confusion on the scope limitation put in place for the problem statement that we/the IESG might want to relax for DNSOP (or anyone else) to consider solutions