[nscp] no bof, update (Fwd: [DNSOP] Call for Contributions: Name Server Control -- Followup Work)

Jelte Jansen <jelte@isc.org> Fri, 15 October 2010 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jelte@isc.org>
X-Original-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57613A6943 for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.288
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JiBySnQDAabk for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F0A3A6832 for <nscp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "farside.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F8765F985D for <nscp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:16:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jelte@isc.org)
Received: from [] (vhe-520087.sshn.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A323E6050 for <nscp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:16:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jelte@isc.org)
Message-ID: <4CB81BFF.9090007@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:16:47 +0200
From: Jelte Jansen <jelte@isc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nscp@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [nscp] no bof, update (Fwd: [DNSOP] Call for Contributions: Name Server Control -- Followup Work)
X-BeenThere: nscp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Nameserver control/configuration protocol discussion list <nscp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nscp>
List-Post: <mailto:nscp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:15:47 -0000

Hash: SHA1


After discussing things with the dnsop chairs, a call for contributions was sent
out there. So if people think netconf/yang is not the best approach, we'd love
to see some alternatives.

We do get a considerable amount of time in the dnsop meeting, let's have
something to discuss there :)

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [DNSOP] Call for Contributions: Name Server Control -- Followup Work
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:12:03 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>


with draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-04.txt now on its way to
the IESG, it is time to look at future efforts.  There was followup work
proposed based on this draft that we had postponed until after the requirements
document would have been finished.  Also, there was a proposal to hold a BOF in
Beijing to explore potential approaches based on, but not limited to, existing
IETF management protocol frameworks.
During the IETF79 planning, the IESG decided to assign the necessary work
to DNSOP which lead to a withdrawal of the BOF request.

Our postponement of the work was due to the desire to get the requirements
finished first.  But some approaches were ruled out of charter because:
 o DNSOP is by definition not allowed to work on protocol (where the
   emphasis is on DNS protocol)

 o the necessary expertise isn't necessarily readily available within the
   DNSOP WG as of today

During the BOF planning there were basically two drafts available:

o draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00.txt (now expired),
  using NETCONF/YANG as a framework,

o draft-kong-dns-conf-auto-sync-01.txt, which suggests mapping DNS
  configuration data into the DNS itself. (It is arguable whether this is
  a modification to the DNS protocol.)

The IESG guidance to go ahead with this work within DNSOP (pending necessary
charter updates) should not be read as a preemptive decision in favor of
YANG or against any other approach.  It was suggested based on the fact
that the administrative overhead of a BOF wasn't necessary to overcome
what might only be a charter update to an existing working group.
That said, we would like to reserve 45 minutes of our 120 minute slot
in Beijing to the topic of "approaches towards a name server control protocol".

What should be achieved during that meeting (with later decision on the list)
is whether there is support for a particular approach to be addressed within
DNSOP.  We'd like to encourage everybody to read the two drafts mentioned
above and, if alternative suggestions exist, submit an individual Internet
Draft by the Beijing deadline (2010-10-18).  Only suggestions with an I-D
are eligible for agenda time and discussion.

An archive of the discussion of the followup work is available at:

Further discussion is encouraged on the DNSOP mailing list.

- -Peter (for the DNSOP co-chairs)
DNSOP mailing list
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/