Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc?
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Wed, 04 April 2012 15:32 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DC721F85A4; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1333553528; bh=XHpPT0qjzlzgdsTF15A/5ldb1WAqXPZ2bS3HlFHDjPw=; h=Mime-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:To:From:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=D7KUx4Sz/DussT/8fTmLEy/n8iVuTk18NPaQuSNgwJND8v9Wb9asjh+ch8bwxyefL Y42MilpbYcfMNZtuYJzfRdjgX3reCGaNiNC5AZOKglWfikhfPivc+3IoNmEscrwoaf MRj/SacudrN7Gd4dUQEl6Lzd03bQERnYUwNn3GFI=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD94C21F85A4 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.650, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H6kGPT9Gv9DA for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D7C21F85A2 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Work-Laptop-2.local (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q34FVaNF002966; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:32:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Received: from [192.168.222.11] by Work-Laptop-2.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:32:01 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Work-Laptop-2.local on Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:32:01 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240802cba21852b697@[10.31.200.143]>
In-Reply-To: <a06240804cb99d889a11a@[192.168.130.74]>
References: <a06240804cb99d889a11a@[192.168.130.74]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:31:30 -0500
To: dnsext@ietf.org
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4
Cc: ed.lewis@neustar.biz
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc?
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
So far I have comments from three people added to the next version-to-be. Frankly, there isn't a lot to this document and it's based on observations. I don't see it as being all that interesting or in need of much "work" despite the fact that inputs to date have improved the document. The answer I seek now is whether this comes in as a -00 in WG name or goes to a -02 version under a personal submission. (I.e., window dressing.) All in all, the WG has shown a low amount of energy for this (rightly so) but when I tried independent submission I was told this is a matter for the WG to look at. The old "catch-22" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22). The IANA editor has informally expressed support for this as a way to clean up dangling references in the DNS parameters page. This is the reason the document has resurfaced. So, WG or not? Individual or not? I just want to get this moving and done. At 11:17 +0200 3/29/12, Edward Lewis wrote: >Any thoughts on whether the following would be a DNSEXT document? >I'm asking DNSOP too. > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-dns-undocumented-types-01 -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars! _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
- [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Tony Finch
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? Donald Eastlake
- Re: [dnsext] Want this to be a WG doc? David Conrad