IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Upcoming P2PNames draft

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 07 May 2015 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 0B63C1ACEE4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2015 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 rhLm55Hd13zo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2015 11:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D666E1ACDC1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2015 11:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-98-218.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t47IPlmq038022 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 May 2015 11:25:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-98-218.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.218] claimed to be [10.20.30.101]
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9AF50836-8749-4DAD-827D-538F96AA1884"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <554B972D.1040706@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 11:25:43 -0700
Message-Id: <490BDEEB-7931-4E14-B352-40451B8B4E00@vpnc.org>
References: <554B972D.1040706@gnu.org>
To: hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wHNNoMXnt9PcauC_II8erfPoovo>
Cc: DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Upcoming P2PNames draft
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 18:25:53 -0000

<WG Secretary hat on>

On May 7, 2015, at 9:47 AM, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> wrote:

> I am definitely concerned with the fact that the P2PNames draft is not
> mentioned in [0] while draft-appelbaum-dnsop-onion-tld-01 was adopted by
> the WG, without any consideration for previous work, especially, as I
> mentioned before, with the existing incompatibilities between the two
> drafts.
> 
> [0]: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/documents/

This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the display of that web page. Literally *none* of the drafts listed under "Related Internet-Drafts" are adopted by the WG. The listing in that section are really things that are considered "related to" the WG. There are two broad criteria for "related to":

- The filename for the draft contains the WG name between dashes

- One of the WG chairs has figured out how to add a draft to the list

Your draft didn't fall into either category, yet. That does not mean your draft isn't related to the WG, since your draft is clearly related by the fact it is on the agenda for an upcoming WG meeting, namely the virtual interim next week.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email