Re: [DNSOP] IETF meeting prep and what

Peter van Dijk <> Fri, 18 June 2021 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89ED3A1BDC for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RXBOCXgkoNLx for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 355E93A1BDB for <>; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 10:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE2C26A0E9; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from plato ([]) by with ESMTPSA id zIOpNJ7azGDVVQAA3c6Kzw (envelope-from <>); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:40:46 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Peter van Dijk <>
To: dnsop <>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 19:40:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Organization: PowerDNS.COM B.V.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IETF meeting prep and what
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, 18 Jun 2021 17:40:57 -0000

On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 19:38 -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
> The chairs have been doing prep work for the upcoming IETF meeting; one issue that we are working on is reaching out to authors whose working group documents have recently expired. While doing this, Benno did some datatracker stuff and ended up with this list 
> All documents from 1 January 2016 onward are open for discussion.   For the older documents that are left - if someone wishes to take them on, please reach out. 

aname can go; I trust the WG feels SVCB will supersede it.

I hope MarkA can revive glue-is-not-optional.

I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations with a short document deprecating 5011 in its entirety. I am happy to write text for that, if there is an appetite - when the WG queue is small enough!

There are quite some things I like in rfc2317-bis, especially the parts where it proposes something -other than- slashes in labels. I am not offering to take it on at this time, though.

Kind regards,
Peter van Dijk