[dnsext] Re: Time-line for forgery resilience phase #2

[Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for taking the suggestions below to heart and following the plan.

At this point we have following drafts submitted:
  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsext-fr-resolver-mitigations-04.txt
  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-reid-dnsext-aleatoric-00.txt
  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-weaver-dnsext-fr-comprehensive-00.txt
  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wijngaards-dnsext-resolver-side-mitigation-00.txt
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hubert-ulevitch-edns-ping-00
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20-00

If we forgot any please reply to this message with the link for the draft.

The forum is now open for discussion.
We propose that you start a new thread for each subject rather than just reply
to this message, in the Subject line put
         FR: Topic

As far as we can tell the ideas contained in the drafts can be summarized into
following rough categories:
         Packet acceptance
         Data admission
         Data integrity checks
         Attack detection

Please use these words in your messages to facilitate clearer understanding.
Feel free to propose new categories.

In Minneapolis the WG is scheduled to meet on Tuesday afternoon.
The chairs have asked for a small meeting room on Monday (during one
of the first 2 sessions) and on Tuesday morning for a "design" team to meet.
If you want to be invited to these meetings send us an e-mail, we want to
get a broad balance of expertise and experience in that room.
The "design" team will present the recommendations (if any) at the
Working Group meeting.

         Olafur and Andrew

At 12:22 04/09/2008, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT wrote:


>The WG has had 2 months to learn about the issues and kick ideas around.
>At this point the discussion has reach the point of diminishing returns.
>The discussion needs to become more focused!
>
>The chairs propose following plan to make progress:
>0. Discussion on namedroppers on ideas without drafts comes to an end.
>    If you need to ask a clarifying question, please put the tag [CLARIFY] in
>    your Subject: line.
>
>1. By September 30'th  everyone that has ideas they want to share
>    should have an ID published.
>    suggested names for drafts: draft-<editor>-dnsext-fr-<name>-xx.txt
>
>2. During October the WG will discuss the ideas and recommendations from the
>    drafts.  Editors are encouraged to update their drafts frequently during
>    this window based on the discussions.
>
>3. During November the WG will select from the ideas on what to recommend as
>    the extended Forgery Resilience approach.
>    The chairs plan to have a special session early in the week at the IETF
>    meeting for interested parties to hash out what makes sense.
>    Recommendations from that session will be proposed to the WG at
>    the official WG meeting.
>
>4. If the WG does not reach a rough consensus by late November the chairs
>    may form a design team to come up with a recommendation.
>
>5. An official WG document(s) will be submitted no later than early
>    December.
>    (we will need editors for this document(s))
>
>6. By late January we will have WGLC on the document(s).
>    The document(s) will be advanced to the IESG by March 1'st.
>
>Based on this plan, please stop all Forgery 
>Resilience (FR) discussion right now.
>If you are not writing down your FR ideas in a draft,
>please review and comment on the following WG last calls:
>
>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01190.html
>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg01430.html
>
>         Olafur and Andrew