IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Uta] dnse related docs.

Dan York <york@isoc.org> Wed, 05 March 2014 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <york@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5811A0255; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:43:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_PROFILE2=1.981, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FRT_PROFILE2=0.01] autolearn=no
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 i15E2uJNTusk; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0244.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FCD1A00F2; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 01:43:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.154) by BLUPR06MB372.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.25.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.888.9; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:43:27 +0000
Received: from BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.224]) by BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.196]) with mapi id 15.00.0888.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:43:26 +0000
From: Dan York <york@isoc.org>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Uta] dnse related docs.
Thread-Index: AQHPN+TbKlW+39YsF0Str5G8841bTZrSPuwA
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:43:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CF3CA0D5.68D2A%york@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <743CBE81-8973-46A4-83F4-3B7978AC031F@bogus.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.101.4]
x-forefront-prvs: 01415BB535
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(428001)(189002)(199002)(377454003)(479174003)(24454002)(47976001)(81686001)(50986001)(85852003)(46102001)(47446002)(54316002)(74706001)(36756003)(74876001)(93136001)(80976001)(49866001)(76176001)(69226001)(47736001)(4396001)(74366001)(77982001)(59766001)(74502001)(76786001)(56816005)(92566001)(95666003)(85306002)(79102001)(81342001)(92726001)(83072002)(76796001)(54356001)(77096001)(95416001)(94946001)(90146001)(87266001)(31966008)(51856001)(81542001)(93516002)(83322001)(19580395003)(53806001)(19580405001)(2656002)(63696002)(81816001)(76482001)(65816001)(86362001)(87936001)(80022001)(94316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR06MB372; H:BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:10.255.101.4; FPR:79AF757.D29E709.ACDD1DBB.56A8F172.201CD; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: isoc.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16BF08F0A7C26E46ACD2745802B4F46D@namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sgZ43R9lFOr_WoD8XgSPpgqfFIc
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Uta] dnse related docs.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:43:33 -0000

On 3/4/14 8:00 PM, "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:

>If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40 slot to
>accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed during DNSE and
>deconflicted that discussion with UTA on friday morning would that be a
>significant imposition? it seems unlikely that more than a 1/3 of the
>slot would be required.

I think this would be useful if it enables folks proficient with TLS who
want to go to UTA Friday morning to weigh in on the DNS confidentiality
discussion and ideas and issues around the potential use (or not) of TLS.

Having said that, I think the usefulness of the session will depend upon
how many people who were part of the DNSE BOF can attend a Thursday night
session.  Do we have a sense yet of how many DNSE presenters and authors
of related drafts would be able to attend? (And people who asked questions
during the DNSE BOF?)

My 2 cents,
Dan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email