[DNSOP] DNSOP WG Interim June 2023 planning: draft-ietf-dnsop rfc8499bis and lame delegation

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Wed, 24 May 2023 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 F1F6DC16B5C1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2023 07:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZSV2_l28VuB9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2023 07:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dane.soverin.net (dane.soverin.net []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C87F9C1DF968 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2023 07:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (c04smtp-lb01.int.sover.in []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dane.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4QRCmS1Cysz10sJ; Wed, 24 May 2023 14:11:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net []) by soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4QRCmR4xTgzHw; Wed, 24 May 2023 14:11:51 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1684937512; bh=vJ2nVkhfIG7XD7+KQiKyvW5fc0diWMT5AxHb2jAflLw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:From; b=xE7bpePBX21INzJVN78EDENpoiQbdn7zhWFH6DosEb9N0Vl8uWofggsXONIqDMk4d X6JKPydJDvlQcW/64ZIfakSSHhcIG6U8Ce6fyQXGWdtPfPnQ2gzgT/CxcdtR4iFqYX PUkD7PPIMSMZ8M+QvMg4tNUStvGitmf8t6LIrX3WjY/bFEvS6fop7k1mr+WAb9Yd2T 5jFXZzMQ0tqMAf8VDg/R13ysPwX+X8vTpsEYSs1Lpeh24GL94gHOjUwqQNoxyZbQks t7TK2lnJXvTktD3DWynJLZ9FfeqZB8ei6c9yLUHTsad/BFbgrW21EwQ7w4Ch9AdGGw ilI5i8HcSKsng==
Message-ID: <54bad8e8-b1ea-9d63-a436-da9c6552ee63@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:11:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-Soverin-Authenticated: true
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EMkUl4pKCES9oM6X9ezFxBGonI0>
Subject: [DNSOP] DNSOP WG Interim June 2023 planning: draft-ietf-dnsop rfc8499bis and lame delegation
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 24 May 2023 14:12:40 -0000

Dear WG,

As mentioned earlier on the mailing list, the chairs are planning an 
interim meeting in June to discuss the three options on how to proceed 
with draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis wrt. lame delegation:

1) Stick with the current text in the document – the original definition 
from RFC8499 plus a note that "These early definitions do not match the 
current use of the term "lame delegation", but there is no consensus on 
what a lame delegation is."
A possible follow-up to this is for someone to start a WG consensus 
document on "lame", which can update 8499bis.
2) We still find a rough consensus on the definition proposed in the 
"Meaning of lame delegation" email thread, and the WG can agree that 
this is a definition useful to DNS engineers/operators.
3) Withdraw the document from WGLC so we can add definitions.  Do not 
propose any new terms and definitions at this stage if we choose this 

Please fill in the Doodle poll to settle on a day and time:

- https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/az7Z5AOb

The options for the time slots are a compromise for CEST/EDT/PDT/AEST/JST.

We will close the Doodle poll at the end of Tuesday 30 May.

Best regards,

Suzanne, Tim and Benno