[dnsop] Draft DNSOP Vancouver minutes
Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> Fri, 09 December 2005 11:02 UTC
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ekg1R-0004uP-FX for dnsop-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:02:46 -0500
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (mailapps.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17609 for <dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:01:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (IDENT:U2FsdGVkX18txFDuqmR4g5iMinnrgrMJ7OGw8T7MgPc@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jB9AIhDV012177; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 02:18:43 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id jB9AIhpf012176; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 02:18:43 -0800
Received: from denic.de (fw-d-whp.denic.de [81.91.160.27]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jB9AIgnq012171 for <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 02:18:42 -0800
Received: by unknown.office.denic.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 347741DAED4; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:18:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:18:36 +0100
From: Peter Koch <pk@denic.de>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: [dnsop] Draft DNSOP Vancouver minutes
Message-ID: <20051209101836.GE383@unknown.office.denic.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1206/Thu Dec 8 11:56:45 2005 on mailapps
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Sender: owner-dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Dear WG, the draft minutes of our Vancouver meeting have been uploaded and are available at <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/minutes/dnsop.txt> as well as in this message. Apologies for the delay and thanks to Sam Weiler for for doing an excellent job. Thanks also to George Michaelson for being the Jabber scribe. Please submit comments and corrections asap; the proceedings will be frozen on December 26. -Peter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DNSOP WG IETF64 Meeting Minutes (draft) Date: 8 November 2005, 15:10-17:10 [PST] Scribe: Sam Weiler Jabber Scribe: George Michaelson Chairs: Rob Austein & Peter Koch ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Process changes The chairs asked for agreement on a temporary moratorium on new work items until items on current agendas are gone, either through publication or killing documents. Before the next IETF, they hope to go through each of the current work items and kill those that the WG won't commit to reviewing (approx. five individuals). Then, for new work, if the WG can't get N (5?) people to review an item, we don't take it on. While agreeing that a simple "hummm" should not be sufficient for taking on new work, Olaf expressed the concern that requiring an empty stack before taking on new work may be bad. He asked that if new items are useful we go ahead and accept them (after applying the gating function based on number of reviewers). The chairs agreed to this modification Two other suggestions were made: Pekka Savola suggested that every author proposing a draft should publicly review 5 other docs. And Liman suggested assigning small teams to shepherd (new) docs, rather than a single editor. No objections were raised to the chairs' proposal. Documents past last WG The chairs listed the docs beyond WG last call, per the agenda. The chairs called for a show of hands for those who had read draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-operational-practices and think we should advance it. David Kessens explained that ipv6-dns-issues passed IESG except for one AD. The doc will be on next IESG telechat agenda to try to clear that Discuss. Mohsen asked for clarification about the state of ipv6-dns-configuration, and the chair confirmed that this WG is done with it -- the IESG just wanted it as input for chartering decisions. Active drafts draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-05.txt There was a WGLC on the serverid draft and the editor believes all substantive comments have been addressed in current draft. The draft is waiting for the chairs to advance it; no further work is needed in the WG at this time. Olaf raised the question of whether this work is still needed since the NSID draft in DNSEXT has now progressed. The chairs asked if any in the room thought the draft was not needed (no hands), who supported publications (modest humm), who opposed (silence), and who had read it (some hands). draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-07.txt For inaddr-required, less than a handful of those present acknowledged having read the CURRENT version of the draft. There were 4-6 people willing to commit to reading the draft, though some of those specifically declined to agree that the draft was worth advancing. The chairs will take the decision of what to do with the draft to the list. draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-02.txt The chairs called for a show of hands for those who had read the LATEST version of the respsize draft and thought it was ready for last call. They asked those uncomfortable with advancing it to send comments to the list. Expired drafts draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-03.txt This was a product of an IAB IPv6 ad hoc group that suggested this WG review it and publish it as informational. This has not been published elsewhere, but it has gotten substantial review, and the service it describes is now up and running. Pekka Savola expressed concerns about whether this document accurately describes the service as it's running and will continue to run. Geoff assured us that this does accurately describe the current service, but that there are no reassurances the service won't change in the future. The service is in the last stages of testing, not productions, so issues that arise during WGLC can still be considered. Ed Lewis also expressed concerns that we were being asked to rubber stamp others' work. David Kessens reassured the WG that we can indeed make changes to the document -- this isn't a request for rubber stamping. Sam Weiler and Lars-Johan Liman asked why DNSOP was being asked to review this, rather than the IAB publishing it directly or the editor sending it in as an individual submission. It was explained that the IAB has asked us to take this on -- they'd rather see us publish it. David Kessens expressed a preference against individual submissions, in part because of the RFC Editor's ISR delays. The chairs called for reviewers and some committed. draft-fujiwara-dnsop-dns-transport-issue-00.txt The editor is withdrawing the draft. Potential new items. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-01.txt Mark gave a brief presentation (see slides in the proceedings) arguing that having an RFC will help encourage some vendors to do this. The chairs asked that the detailed discussion of the names on the list be deferred. They clarified that this is NOT a protocol change and offered an alternate explanation: it's like replicating AS112 on all recursive resolvers. Olaf pointed out that the registry lacks an allocation policy and as asked to send text fixing that. Peter Lothberg started a brief discussion of alternatives to NXDOMAIN answers (such as answering the queries) and Bill Manning told of his experiences doing that. When he first proposed standing up dedicated servers for this, the IANA said this was ludicrous -- these queries would never make it out onto the live net. This was a safety net. When they actually tried it, there was a huge number of queries and Bill got an "exorbitant" number of threats from important people. There was some discussion of whether this "blacklist" needs to be updated regularly, and Mark explained that one must be careful about what names are added -- removal from the list is difficult. Olafur and David Hankins spoke up in support of the draft and committed to review it. The chairs called for other reviewers. draft-minda-dnsop-using-in-bailiwick-nameservers-01.txt draft-morishita-dnsop-anycast-node-requirements-01.txt The editors of these documents weren't present; discussion should go to the list. draft-durand-dnsop-dont-publish-01.txt Very few comments have been made about it on the list and it's not clear how interested the WG is. There was discussion of whether to mention split-brain configuration in the draft -- consensus seems to be strongly in favor of doing so, recognizing that split brain is a fact of life. The chairs encouraged the editor to submit a new version within 8-10 weeks, which should be about the time that the WG has finished its review of existing items and is ready to consider new work. draft-kurtis-tld-ops-00.txt The editor didn't get a revision in by the draft cutoff and promised to do better next time. draft-krishnaswamy-dnsop-dnssec-split-view-01.txt This draft has gotten very few comments on the list (there were no responses to a query from Ed Lewis in August). The chairs called for reviewers, and 5-6 people volunteered. draft-pappas-dnsop-long-ttl-00.txt The chairs pointed out this document, which will be discussed on the list later. They're particularly concerned with how this interacts with DNSSEC and would especially appreciate review by TLD operators and registries. Charter and direction The chairs pointed out that the previous charter focuses on work in three areas: 1) IPv4/v6 coexistence 2) DNSSEC 3) general DNS operations The chairs asked if there are any other big areas that need to be included, and Ed Lewis mentioned the resolver and measurement of the effects of DNS operational changes. Any other business draft-kato-dnsop-local-zones-00.txt There was a brief discussion of whether Kato-san's local zones draft should be merged into Andrews' draft. Liman spoke up for keeping them separate. draft-conroy-enum-edns0-01.txt The question was raised of how to support other working groups, in particular reviewing this draft. Patrik, as an ENUM chair asked if we need a doc saying "you should do EDNS0" (some phone handsets aren't.) and, if so, should we do that in DNSOP, in ENUM, or in ENUM reviewed in DNSOP? Rob thinks DNSOP should go ahead and review it, to save the IESG the hassle of sending it to us later in the process. Patrik asked for a coeditor and Liman volunteered. There was discussion of the scope of the document: whether it should include both operational and implementation requirements and, since this touches clients, servers, and middleboxes, whether the doc would grow unwieldy. It was suggested that a big doc would do ENUM a disservice -- they need a short, terse doc with lots of requirements to use to beat implementers. ENUM and other WGs that need such a document should write it themselves, with our review, and if we want a bigger, more comprehensive document, we can reuse text from their documents. (Mark Andrews volunteered to review a DNS firewalls rules document.) Following up on the discussion of draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers and Bill Manning's stories, Dave Hankins mentioned that as a contact for AS112 advertised address space, he regularly gets phone calls from folks who think they're under attack. Sundry suggestions were offered for mitigating this lack of clue, including changing the WHOIS records or advertising a special phone number which is answered only by a machine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
- [dnsop] Draft DNSOP Vancouver minutes Peter Koch