Re: [DNSOP] Updates to AS 112 WG drafts -- solicitation for progress

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

First, my thanks to William F. Maton Sotomayor for taking up
this long-lasting thread and reviving the AS112 drafts.

I have followed up to both new AS112 drafts,

      draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-02
and
      draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-02,

and I heartly recommend the WG to now undertake all necessary
steps to quickly bring these documents to RFC publication.

I do not believe that IPv6 considerations should now hold off these
drafts even more.  I would diagnose considerable unfairness in the
WG against the authors if, after being silent for so many months,
this issue would now be raised as a show-stopper.
The description in the drafts necessarily is a snapshot in time,
and any document on operational considerations could be held off
indefinitely by a sustained requirement to add the next generation
of considerations.

Further, I oppose to attempts to mix in forgery resilience aspects
into these documents.  These are orthogonal to the topic of these
drafts and dealt with in a separate effort.  We should not blow up
every other document with the never ending discussion on the
lazyness of operators in the implementation of efficient RPF in
access networks, to raise the hurdles for source address spoofing;
doing so would be an effective means to totally stall the WG process.

I share the opinion of the authors that the 'fading of comments'
after -01 was a clear indication that all interested folks did
agree with the drafts, and hence that WG consensus on the drafts
should have been declared or finally determined formally.

All comments I once had sent in have been acted upon gracefully,
and I only found two tiny nits in -help-help-02, which can easily
be fixed during RFC Editor processing:
- in the first paragraph of the Abstract, common spelling prcatice
  in RFC prose suggests to   s/RFC1918/RFC 1918/ ;
- in the last paragraph of Section 1,   s/to be be/to be/ .


Thus, I'd like to ask the chairs to now quickly proceed with both
documents.  The updates to -02 have been clerical, and hence, if
in your opinion WGLC has been carried out last year, go ahead;
otherwise, please issue a short WGLC.

Since draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones is an essential
complementary document, I repeat my request to go ahead with that
draft as well.

I heartfully await an immediate one-week WGLC on all three drafts
so that the outcome can be discussed at IETF, if necessary.
The WG charter has milestones for forwarding to the IESG of all
these documents by September 2007 (!).  The WG would gradually
loose its credibility if it proves continued inability to show
progress on chartered work items.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+