Re: [DNSOP] draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-bit

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

Stephane, Christian,

First-- apologies for being offline much of last week.

On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:08:42PM +0100,
> Christian Grothoff <[e-mail]> wrote 
> a message of 13 lines which said:
> 
>> We have solicited but failed to receive any feedback from the dnsop
>> chairs or list on how to improve/revise the draft. Hence, there are
>> currently no updates.  I continue to await the chairs asking for
>> last call on this.
> 
> It has been said that post-onion drafts won't be considered until
> 6761bis is out <https://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/09/onion/>

Correct. We're not ruling out further consideration of the special-use-p2p draft before that process is complete, but we're definitely seeking a clear direction for the problem statement and possible solutions.

To this end: more review of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/ would be most welcome. In particular: what is still missing from our understanding of the problem(s) we're facing here?

> but it did
> not prevented
> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/> to
> advance: it will be interesting to see how .home is handled.

As far as I know, draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home has not "advanced" anywhere; it's simply been submitted as an internet-draft and briefly discussed on the dnsop mailing list. CC'ing homenet chairs in case they can add anything, but dnsop hasn't acted on it, nor have we been asked to. 



best,
Suzanne