[DNSOP] Fwd: Re: [dnsext] Re: Time-line for forgery resilience phase #2

[Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[e-mail]>]

I'm forwarding this message to DNSOP as DNSEXT is looking for people with
operational experiences to help formulate a possible Forgery Resilience
changes to DNS protocol and practices.

For people not on namedroppers here are some background messages:
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01131.html
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01677.html

         thanks

         Olafur


>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:26:08 -0500
>To: [e-mail]
>From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT
>  chair <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: [dnsext] Re: Time-line for forgery resilience phase #2
>List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
>
>Dear colleagues
>It has been rather quiet on the mailing list on this topic.
>So far only 3 people have volunteered to be on the design team.
>         Nicholas Weaver
>         Matt Larson
>         David Blacka
>The chairs are looking for a design team that includes people from
>different backgrounds and experiences. In particular we are looking
>for volunteers from the ISP and non-TLD authorative server side.
>(contact me privately if you want to be included, only vetted volunteers
>will get the magic email telling them the location of the design team
>gathering).
>
>If you think this effort is important, please volunteer, or say on the
>mailing list what your "solution space woulFrom [e-mail]  Wed Nov 12 07:58:26 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3ED3A6A6E;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:58:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD993A6A6E
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:58:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.15
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.052,
	BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3,
	MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id hbsBHHZfec-K for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CE63A67F0
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Puki.ogud.com (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4])
	by stora.ogud.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mACFwR1u037048
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:58:28 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from [e-mail])
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:57:37 -0500
To: [e-mail]
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ólafur?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_Guðmundsson?= /DNSEXT 
	chair <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 10.20.30.4
Subject: [DNSOP] Fwd: Re: [dnsext] Re: Time-line for forgery resilience
	phase #2
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="======= 70404514="
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

I'm forwarding this message to DNSOP as DNSEXT is looking for people with
operational experiences to help formulate a possible Forgery Resilience
changes to DNS protocol and practices.

For people not on namedroppers here are some background messages:
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01131.html
http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01677.html

         thanks

         Olafur


>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:26:08 -0500
>To: [e-mail]
>From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT
>  chair <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: [dnsext] Re: Time-line for forgery resilience phase #2
>List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>
>
>Dear colleagues
>It has been rather quiet on the mailing list on this topic.
>So far only 3 people have volunteered to be on the design team.
>         Nicholas Weaver
>         Matt Larson
>         David Blacka
>The chairs are looking for a design team that includes people from
>different backgrounds and experiences. In particular we are looking
>for volunteers from the ISP and non-TLD authorative server side.
>(contact me privately if you want to be included, only vetted volunteers
>will get the magic email telling them the location of the design team
>gathering).
>
>If you think this effort is important, please volunteer, or say on the
>mailing list what your "solution space wod look like" as a template for
>the design team to look at.
>
>In addition if there are operational practices 
>that we should recommend please
>put them forward as well.
>
>         thanks
>         Olafur
>
>At 15:24 17/10/2008, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT wrote:
>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>Thank you for taking the suggestions below to heart and following the plan.
>>
>>At this point we have following drafts submitted:
>> 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsext-fr-resolver-mitigations-04.txt
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-reid-dnsext-aleatoric-00.txt
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-weaver-dnsext-fr-comprehensive-00.txt
>> 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wijngaards-dnsext-resolver-side-mitigation-00.txt 
>>
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hubert-ulevitch-edns-ping-00
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20-00
>>
>>If we forgot any please reply to this message with the link for the draft.
>>
>>The forum is now open for discussion.
>>We propose that you start a new thread for each 
>>subject rather than just reply
>>to this message, in the Subject line put
>>         FR: Topic
>>
>>As far as we can tell the ideas contained in 
>>the drafts can be summarized into
>>following rough categories:
>>         Packet acceptance
>>         Data admission
>>         Data integrity checks
>>         Attack detection
>>
>>Please use these words in your messages to facilitate clearer understanding.
>>Feel free to propose new categories.
>>
>>In Minneapolis the WG is scheduled to meet on Tuesday afternoon.
>>The chairs have asked for a small meeting room on Monday (during one
>>of the first 2 sessions) and on Tuesday morning for a "design" team to meet.
>>If you want to be invited to these meetings send us an e-mail, we want to
>>get a broad balance of expertise and experience in that room.
>>The "design" team will present the recommendations (if any) at the
>>Working Group meeting.
>>
>>         Olafur and Andrew
>>
>>At 12:22 04/09/2008, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The WG has had 2 months to learn about the issues and kick ideas around.
>>>At this point the discussion has reach the point of diminishing returns.
>>>The discussion needs to become more focused!
>>>
>>>The chairs propose following plan to make progress:
>>>0. Discussion on namedroppers on ideas without drafts comes to an end.
>>>    If you need to ask a clarifying question, 
>>> please put the tag [CLARIFY] in
>>>    your Subject: line.
>>>
>>>1. By September 30'th  everyone that has ideas they want to share
>>>    should have an ID published.
>>>    suggested names for drafts: draft-<editor>-dnsext-fr-<name>-xx.txt
>>>
>>>2. During October the WG will discuss the ideas and recommendations from the
>>>    drafts.  Editors are encouraged to update their drafts frequently during
>>>    this window based on the discussions.
>>>
>>>3. During November the WG will select from the ideas on what to recommend as
>>>    the extended Forgery Resilience approach.
>>>    The chairs plan to have a special session early in the week at the IETF
>>>    meeting for interested parties to hash out what makes sense.
>>>    Recommendations from that session will be proposed to the WG at
>>>    the official WG meeting.
>>>
>>>4. If the WG does not reach a rough consensus by late November the chairs
>>>    may form a design team to come up with a recommendation.
>>>
>>>5. An official WG document(s) will be submitted no later than early
>>>    December.
>>>    (we will need editors for this document(s))
>>>
>>>6. By late January we will have WGLC on the document(s).
>>>    The document(s) will be advanced to the IESG by March 1'st.
>>>
>>>Based on this plan, please stop all Forgery 
>>>Resilience (FR) discussion right now.
>>>If you are not writing down your FR ideas in a draft,
>>>please review and comment on the following WG last calls:
>>>
>>>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01190.html
>>>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01430.html
>>>
>>>   uld look like" as a template for
>the design team to look at.
>
>In addition if there are operational practices 
>that we should recommend please
>put them forward as well.
>
>         thanks
>         Olafur
>
>At 15:24 17/10/2008, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT wrote:
>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>Thank you for taking the suggestions below to heart and following the plan.
>>
>>At this point we have following drafts submitted:
>> 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsext-fr-resolver-mitigations-04.txt
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-reid-dnsext-aleatoric-00.txt
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-weaver-dnsext-fr-comprehensive-00.txt
>> 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wijngaards-dnsext-resolver-side-mitigation-00.txt 
>>
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hubert-ulevitch-edns-ping-00
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20-00
>>
>>If we forgot any please reply to this message with the link for the draft.
>>
>>The forum is now open for discussion.
>>We propose that you start a new thread for each 
>>subject rather than just reply
>>to this message, in the Subject line put
>>         FR: Topic
>>
>>As far as we can tell the ideas contained in 
>>the drafts can be summarized into
>>following rough categories:
>>         Packet acceptance
>>         Data admission
>>         Data integrity checks
>>         Attack detection
>>
>>Please use these words in your messages to facilitate clearer understanding.
>>Feel free to propose new categories.
>>
>>In Minneapolis the WG is scheduled to meet on Tuesday afternoon.
>>The chairs have asked for a small meeting room on Monday (during one
>>of the first 2 sessions) and on Tuesday morning for a "design" team to meet.
>>If you want to be invited to these meetings send us an e-mail, we want to
>>get a broad balance of expertise and experience in that room.
>>The "design" team will present the recommendations (if any) at the
>>Working Group meeting.
>>
>>         Olafur and Andrew
>>
>>At 12:22 04/09/2008, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The WG has had 2 months to learn about the issues and kick ideas around.
>>>At this point the discussion has reach the point of diminishing returns.
>>>The discussion needs to become more focused!
>>>
>>>The chairs propose following plan to make progress:
>>>0. Discussion on namedroppers on ideas without drafts comes to an end.
>>>    If you need to ask a clarifying question, 
>>> please put the tag [CLARIFY] in
>>>    your Subject: line.
>>>
>>>1. By September 30'th  everyone that has ideas they want to share
>>>    should have an ID published.
>>>    suggested names for drafts: draft-<editor>-dnsext-fr-<name>-xx.txt
>>>
>>>2. During October the WG will discuss the ideas and recommendations from the
>>>    drafts.  Editors are encouraged to update their drafts frequently during
>>>    this window based on the discussions.
>>>
>>>3. During November the WG will select from the ideas on what to recommend as
>>>    the extended Forgery Resilience approach.
>>>    The chairs plan to have a special session early in the week at the IETF
>>>    meeting for interested parties to hash out what makes sense.
>>>    Recommendations from that session will be proposed to the WG at
>>>    the official WG meeting.
>>>
>>>4. If the WG does not reach a rough consensus by late November the chairs
>>>    may form a design team to come up with a recommendation.
>>>
>>>5. An official WG document(s) will be submitted no later than early
>>>    December.
>>>    (we will need editors for this document(s))
>>>
>>>6. By late January we will have WGLC on the document(s).
>>>    The document(s) will be advanced to the IESG by March 1'st.
>>>
>>>Based on this plan, please stop all Forgery 
>>>Resilience (FR) discussion right now.
>>>If you are not writing down your FR ideas in a draft,
>>>please review and comment on the following WG last calls:
>>>
>>>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01190.html
>>>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01430.html
>>>
>>>       Olafur and Andrew

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop