Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Edward Lewis <> Thu, 16 March 2017 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3709129646 for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksSg6YVOfCvO for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6758D12956D for <>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:08:36 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 09:08:36 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <>
To: dnsop <>
CC: Russ Housley <>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
Thread-Index: AQHSnm+QmAufaw3uk0OHQsghbu9MHA==
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:08:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3572528915_1557754935"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:08:41 -0000

On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" < on behalf of> wrote:

>I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that document.  What is the plan?

Just accidently saw this...I haven't been reading DNSOP much recently.

FWIW, the document ("-domain-names-") was informally attached to the IAB's Names and Identifier's Program, that program was recently scuttled by the IAB like, maybe, 2-3 weeks ago.  I had been wondering (but more tied up with this week's ICANN meeting) what happens next, and haven't gotten around to dealing with that.  In that sense "Good Question."

The domain-names draft was never considered for a DNSOP WG document as it is mostly about how this is not a DNS problem.  In 2015, I did get comments from folks on this list and then for most of 2016 the discussion was under the IAB program.  There wasn't much discussion which is the prime reason the document was in a suspended, waiting state.

The document currently has two pieces.  One is the historical narrative and written to justify clarifying domain names, with "clarifying" being an action not to be undertake without much consideration.  (Having written two clarifications, I've learned.)  The other piece is where I wanted discussion, defining domain names.

I could edit the document to include just the first piece and submit it to the Independent Stream whatever, Editor.  There's not much reason not to do that - it just hadn't happened while the IAB program was in place (potentially adopting the document).  On the other hand, I was still "discovering" some of the elements of the relevant history as late as December based on the only set of comments I'd received in months (got it in private email in September).

What are the chances that the Independent Stream Editor will bounce this document towards DNSOP?  So - as a question to the chairs - is it worth DNSOP adopting this document (covering the history) at the risk of it being out of scope for the charter, or is it better to, if the Independent Stream Editor bounces this to DNSOP, reply with a "it's not our bailiwick?"

I suppose in any case there will be an IETF-wide last call before the document stands a chance of being a vetted, published document.  I've just never thought of any other vetting (WG) to be done.