Re: [dnsext] any interest to move bname forward before dnsext closing down

[Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]>]

Sorry I sent this to the mailing list instead of to andrew.
Please ignore once, andrew and I agree on a statement we will post
an official answer.

This is totally my mistake.

	Olafur


On 13/01/2012 10:33, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> On 14:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:18:12AM +0800, Jiankang YAO wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any interest to move bname forward before dnsext closing down
>>
>> Regardless of the interest, we can't do it in this working group. Our
>> charter said we would complete the study of aliasing before doing
>> that, and we haven't completed it.
>
> This is not true, our charter does not say that, our policy was to wait
> for aliasing study before proceeding.
> We can at any time change our policy, if the WG ask us to do that.
>
>
>> Even if we ignored that, our AD
>> asked us to be ready to shut down in the spring, and there is zero
>> hope that BNAME could be ready for publication by then, since it would
>> be necessary to figure out how to make BNAME deployable given the fact
>> of deployed DNSSEC and existing validators on the net (the draft as it
>> stood at expiration had no answer for this -- it effectively said that
>> all the DNSSEC infrastructure on the Internet had to be upgraded
>> first).
>
> This is true but to tone is more negative than I like so here is reword:
> Even if the WG decided to take up this work today, considering that we
> are closing down in about 3 months there is little chance that we can
> finalize the protocol spec and do interop testing in order to be able to
> advance this work. The reason we need interop testing is that this work
> requires most DNS resolvers and servers to be updated before
> BNAME is useful on its own. We also need to make sure there are no
> negative side effects of the deployment hacks to support early BNAME
> deployment.
>
>
>> Unless I missed it, I've never seen a suggestion on how that
>> could be solved apart from "online signing", which doesn't seem to me
>> to be a real answer.
>>
>
> Drop the above, too inflammatory.
>
>> If there were a clear and careful needs analysis (and I believe the
>> case could be made without talking about IDN -- website redirection is
>> another example), and there were evidence of work being done, I'd
>
> s/I'd/chairs can/
>
>> argue to the AD that the WG was still labouring over this topic and
>
> s/labouring/laboring/
>
>> that it would complete the work. But in fact, the aliasing
>> requirements draft expired, and very little discussion of it took
>> place prior to that expiry.
>
>  > I conclude that there may be interest in
>> that work, but not in this working group, so we should stop pretending
>> we're going to work on it.
>>
>
> Replace by:
> We do not see much evidence of interest in this work in the WG,
> unless there is interest there is no reason to make commitment to work
> on this protocol extension.
>
> Olafur & Andrew
>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext