Return-Path: X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3CA128CB7 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:09:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPx7oh1-f7DW for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40D6F128B14 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id 189-v6so3396333wmw.2 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:09:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=gW145ZvStv6ZoEhFkZeiNMGS1cU6pVUlex0m2Un1O90=; b=edKTvkRWzboW+Rd8KPAM7bZFyf33sgTaNKU+cotnQE/tUH544Kk2Uvpbw0Lsnr1kxg 6HsA6K7c7EpDkaPCBTf9ejUuKjOpFh03W4p9G79ktcieN2xI80ojzSVzg2EopOcNCgGb dmOC+8Lg+EDQYElIQrJmLId94WSB9fE0YCQYi+u6LAP01ou3WNgMQaqLka+Zb0xregKj pV0VGDpdJyKEScCVg8gJT9Iu+7155/WAk0zcPZg++dH1lYgpqODHeRK7ehzzotqe5Q2K 0Ql+JZxZCU/wr5qLaOeNdYR/rGt137+qenKjqzqpC0h30fY+iXBtdwgfiA3Lzp0hKzgI 07ug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=gW145ZvStv6ZoEhFkZeiNMGS1cU6pVUlex0m2Un1O90=; b=toPUla62S4VNosTqumKAYnhx7tulRAWO3IM7lJlZ1/A+Eo6X3m3ujVgqWuQywa0QZf s8F5XRBkbizVmBIZ9Iezxf5oFKOt7+2OcHEARmUislzmb0WcAevG78IibP2JBsKw+bW6 xyquu+UhxkQSXDu1WTw/WGrAm2HfpbJ2P+B/csRmRypbqTpM960fhuNZC3+vbC96zz4G 3MnTReBsXT1pS4fIFmjYrQukHpLZeM5GG7DRFtJreNMC52GuNjOrPPWh74Z/u/vN/LKS 3AkLS15EN/BOb8sInPlMw1P5GsanSwofvJhDQafxFMKUd7ky3QFB3jaVvHyX9Ze+XaD4 CSog== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoh50D4T5H+zQfcl9nCt0U85X818HujxpA2sN/X3v8Euxeocx50B oOhm9qheupeBF6+iAShFXePrOOExvCwrUSn4x05VqfJ3GY3B0A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61e7aiaeqLYyocRxs1NpHz1fgir+/P4F6MjaEXwGorezwJpobYD8wKrLLoyP2DyAZkE0oxGlQQC5vmGcdMKVz0= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7809:: with SMTP id t9-v6mr4484213wmc.77.1539950959650; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 05:09:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warren Kumari Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:08:31 +0200 Message-ID: To: dnsop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec0219057893c5d4" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A quick update on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf / draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:09:26 -0000 --000000000000ec0219057893c5d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, there were a few documents where I was not able to quickly figure out which of the classes it should be placed in. RFC3861 describes how to use SRV, but it is updated by RFC6121, which largely says "Don't!" -- what do we do here? Update both? Just RFC3861? Juast RFC6121? I couldn't figure out RFC3404, and RFC6011. Clue appreciated. RFC3404 -- Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application Perhaps SRV? But it doesn't really seem to be underscore scoped... RFC6121 -- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence This updates RFC3921 and explicitly recommends against SRV. "Interoperability Note: RFC 3921 specified how to use the _im._xmpp and _pres._xmpp SRV records [IMP-SRV] as a fallback method for discovering whether a remote instant messaging and presence service communicates via XMPP. Because those SRV records have not been widely deployed, this document no longer specifies their use, and new implementations are not encouraged." Should this be in this list? RFC3861 -- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence See above. It would be SRV, but was updated by RFC6121. RFC6011 -- Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration I got confused here -- I cannot really see the underscore names here as anything other than a target name. W On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM Warren Kumari wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:34 AM Warren Kumari wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:04 PM Warren Kumari wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> Dave suggested I send this out. >>> >>> draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf and draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix have >>> completed IESG review. >>> Alissa is holding a DISCUSS position on draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix - >>> this can be seen here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/ballot/ >>> >>> Alissa (and a number of other ADs) feel that each of the (37!) updated >>> documents should be classified into 2.1. (TXT RRset), 2.2. (SRV RRset) >>> or 2.3. (URI RRset). >>> >>> Basically, we need to go through each document in draft-ietf-dnsop-attr= leaf-fix, >>> figure out which class it falls into (TXT, SRV, URI), and add it to a l= ist. >>> We then add a sentence to each of those sections saying "Documents in t= his >>> category include RFCxxxx, RFCyyyy, RFCzzzz". >>> >>> Dave has stated that he is unwilling to do this work. Instead of having >>> the WG document simply stall, Benno and I have agreed that we would spl= it >>> them between us. If anyone would like to volunteer to help out, we woul= d >>> not take it amiss. >>> >>> Please note that this is not a normal situation - in general we expect >>> the authors to deal with IESG DISCUSS (and other ballots) - but we want= ed >>> to move this document along. >>> >>> So, if you would be willing to take a few documents to classify, please >>> go to this spreadsheet: >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oTs8ZJy6EZdSt4NXZJbcIRd771V9Rbg= 9TqddE5KlLGE/edit?usp=3Dsharing >>> [0] >>> >>> Change the reviewer from Benno or Warren to your name **before** >>> starting the review (we really don't need multiple reviews of the same >>> document!), and then update the spreadsheet with what "class" of update= it >>> is. Please have the review done by Wednesday Oct 24th. >>> >>> Review help would be appreciated, but if you are not able to (I know >>> people are really busy before IETF week), Benno and I will manage... >>> >> >> >> ... and my plane was delayed by an hour, so I decided to take a start on >> this - I=E2=80=99ve done ~20 so far, so please remember to check the spr= eadsheet >> before starting any... >> > > > ... and I got basically all of the rest done on the flight. > > I have a few which I really cannot figure out what category they are, and > so I=E2=80=99ll ask for your help figuring them out... > > W > > >> W >> >> >>> W >>> [0]: Posting a public link to a spreadsheet.... what could *possibly* g= o >>> wrong!? >>> >>> -- >>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad ide= a >>> in the first place. >>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of >>> pants. >>> ---maf >>> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea >> in the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of >> pants. >> ---maf >> > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea > in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of > pants. > ---maf > --=20 I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf --000000000000ec0219057893c5d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, there were a few documents where I was = not able to quickly figure out which of the classes it should be placed in.=

RFC3861 describes how to use SRV, but it is updated by RFC6121, which= largely says "Don't!" -- what do we do here? Update both? Ju= st RFC3861? Juast RFC6121?
I couldn't figure out RFC3404, and RFC6011.<= /div>
= Clue appreciated.

RFC340= 4 -- Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The Unif= orm Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application
Perhaps SRV? But it doesn't really seem= to be underscore scoped...

RFC6121 = -- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messa= ging and Presence
This= updates RFC3921 and explicitly recommends against SRV.
=
"Interoperability Note: RFC 3921 specifi= ed how to use the _im._xmpp and _pres._xmpp SRV records [IMP-SRV] as a fallback method for discovering whether a remote instant messaging and presence service communicates via XMPP. Because those SRV records have not been widely deployed, this document no longer specifies their use, and new implementations are not encouraged."
Should this be in this list?

RFC3861 -- E= xtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging= and Presence
See abo= ve. It would be SRV, but was updated by RFC6121.

RF= C6011 -- Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration=
I got confused here -= - I cannot really see the underscore names here as anything other than a ta= rget name.

W

<= /div>

On Fri, Oc= t 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:


On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:34 AM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net&= gt; wrote:
<= br>

On Thu,= Oct 18, 2018 at 9:04 PM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
Hi there,

Dave suggested I send = this out.=C2=A0

draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf and=C2=A0draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf= -fix have completed IESG review.=C2=A0
Alissa is holding a DISCUSS pos= ition on=C2=A0draft-i= etf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix=C2=A0- this can be seen here:=C2=A0https://data= tracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix/ballot/
=

Alissa (and a number of other ADs) feel that each of the= (37!) updated documents should be classified into=C2=A02.1. (TXT RRset),=C2=A02.2. (SRV RRset) or=C2=A02.= 3. (URI RRset).=C2=A0

Basically, we need to go through each docume= nt in=C2=A0draft-ietf= -dnsop-attrleaf-fix, figure out which class it falls into (TXT, SRV, URI), = and add it to a list. We then add a sentence to each of those sections sayi= ng "Documents in this category include RFCxxxx, RFCyyyy, RFCzzzz"= .

Dave has stated that= he is unwilling to do this work. Instead of having the WG document simply = stall, Benno and I have agreed that we would split them between us. If anyo= ne would like to volunteer to help out, we would not take it amiss.<= /div>

Please note that this is not a= normal situation - in general we expect the authors to deal with IESG DISC= USS (and other ballots) - but we wanted to move this document along.=

So, if you would be willing to take a few document= s to classify, please go to this spreadsheet:=C2=A0https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oTs8ZJy6EZdSt4NXZJbcIRd771V9Rbg9Tq= ddE5KlLGE/edit?usp=3Dsharing [0]

Change the reviewer from Benno = or Warren to your name **before** starting the review (we really don't = need multiple reviews of the same document!), and then update the spreadshe= et with what "class" of update it is. Please have the review done= by Wednesday Oct 24th.=C2=A0

Review help would be appreciated, but = if you are not able to (I know people are really busy before IETF week), Be= nno and I will manage...


... and my plane was delayed by an hour, = so I decided to take a start on this - I=E2=80=99ve done ~20 so far, so ple= ase remember to check the spreadsheet before starting any...


... and I got basically all of the rest done on the flight.<= /div>

I have a few which I rea= lly cannot figure out what category they are, and so I=E2=80=99ll ask for y= our help figuring them out...

W


W
=

=

<= /font>
W
[0]: Posting a public link to a spreadsheet.... what could *possibly* g= o wrong!?
=

--
I don't think the execution is relevant when i= t was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabi= d weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those= particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0---maf
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it w= as obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid w= easels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those pa= rticular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0---maf
--
I don't think the execution is rel= evant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place.
This is like = putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having = chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants.
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0---maf


--
I don't t= hink the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the firs= t place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later exp= ressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pai= r of pants.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0---maf
--000000000000ec0219057893c5d4--