Re: Where we stand and where we are going

Michael Mealling <> Wed, 26 June 2002 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> (original mail from ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for (ORCPT; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <> for (ORCPT; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:43:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <> for; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:43:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g5QDfEuK029792; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:41:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from michael@localhost) by (8.12.1/8.12.1/Submit) id g5QDfDWT029791; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:41:13 -0400
From: Michael Mealling <>
Subject: Re: Where we stand and where we are going
In-reply-to: <3579417.1025009747@localhost>
To: John C Klensin <>
Reply-to: Michael Mealling <>
Message-id: <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/
References: <3579417.1025009747@localhost>
List-Owner: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Help: <>, <>
List-Id: <>

On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 12:55:47PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> Well, as usual, we have an IETF coming up, the publication
> deadline is very near, I haven't accomplished as much as I would
> like, and most others appear to not be publishing quickly either.

I resemble that remark. ;-)

> I am working on getting another version of "dns-search" out
> before next Monday's deadline.  While it contains a number of
> clarifications and updates, the important material is in several
> new (or almost-new) sections.  I will circulate those to this
> group as they are ready, in the hope of getting comments before I
> fold them into the document or, at least, of giving the rest of
> you some time to think about them before Yokohama.
> I have realized as I have been working on it that it presents an
> abstract model, but perhaps too many undefined choices.  Would it
> be helpful to have drafts that identify and specify implementable
> protocols (even if they are wrong) as a means of getting comments
> and moving forward?  If so, we need to figure out how to get
> those written -- I can certainly produce some text for people to
> revise and replace, but that may not be the most efficient way to
> move forward.

Would the SLS document help in that regard or are you suggesting
something different? I expect to have the SLS document revised by
thea deadline as well. 

> Several people have asked about a BOF (or even a WG) in Yokohama.
> The problem, unfortunately, remains what it was in Minneapolis:
> especially for a WG, I don't think we have quite enough material
> on the table to ask the IESG to set one up: the only relevant
> draft I've seen since Minneapolis has been the Chinese name
> string proposal.  As most of you know, I would like to have
> enough substantive material ready before we try for general
> meetings to avoid one of the problems that has hindered the work
> of the IDN WG: too many people talking about too many different
> topics and not really understanding that they are not
> communicating with each other.

I definitely agree...

> Suggestions as to how to proceed, comments on drafts, etc., are,
> of  course, welcome at any time.

My intent is that the SLS document will be upgraded to reflect somethings
we've learned in the past few months, along with an update of the
transport to be more 'DNS-like'. This means moving away from the XML
chattiness and into a binary, UDP-friendly packet format. Is there
any concensus for using that as a strawman protocol to bang against
for concrete protocol-level discussions?


Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1      |                              |