Jim and Paul
Since we started this discussion I have got more private emails/IM's about
"how <insert emotion> this <insert person> is"
than ever before in working on IETF drafts. Thus I want some of the people that
have strong opinions
and feelings to clear the air and reach understanding or at least civility. I
also want to listen to people that have different perspectives/roles.
Warren and I have requested a time slice in DNSOP to report on what the status
is and possible ways forward,
such as:
a) go ahead with possible minor changes
b) modify it to reflect what we think may work
c) drop it.
d) Propose a different way forward (say PARENT proposal)
e) Should we add NS and Glue to the effort ?
and if should this belongs in DNSOP or not.
Olafur
On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:26 AM, James M Galvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm interested in this topic and like Paul am disappointed you're not having
> during a WG session.
>
> Scheduling will be difficult if you're looking to have it outside of WG
> sessions.
>
> I suggest a doodle poll of some options, maybe all the options that fit your
> schedule and then we see how it shapes up.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> -- On March 5, 2013 3:10:16 PM -0500 Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> wrote
> regarding [DNSOP] F2F meeting in Orlando Re: General comments on
> draft-kumari-ogud-dnsop-cds-01 --
>
>> I will try to organize a face to face meeting on the topic of moving
>> DNS delegation information in-band (inside DNS) from child to
>> parent, at the IETF next week (will send out report after meeting)
>> If you are interested in attending let me know and in general what
>> times are good for you,
>>
>> Olafur
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 2013-03-05, at 15:01, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Joe Abley wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I presume this has already come up, and there are good reasons
>> >>> why the apparent lexical flexibility in what I'm about to suggest
>> >>> are swamped by a sea of vicious snakes, but if the goal is
>> >>> "transmitting general information to the parent which in some
>> >>> cases they might care about" why not think about a more general
>> >>> RRType of the form
>> >>>
>> >>> ; zone cut
>> >>> example.com. IN SOA ...
>> >>> ;
>> >>> example.com. IN PARENT DS parental-hints.example.com. example.com.
>> >>> example.com. IN PARENT A ns1.example.com. ns1.example.com.
>> >>
>> >> I'm very nervous about such a fundamental zone syntax change. It's
>> >> going to take forever for zone tools to take up on this.
>> >
>> > Every new RR is a zone syntax change.
>> >
>> >> It would be better to use a non-IN class PARENT
>> >>
>> >> example.com. PARENT DS parental-hints.example.com. example.com.
>> >
>> > If the record is not in the same class, then it's not in the same
>> > zone. That route takes us back to Vixie metazones.
>> >
>> >
>> > Joe
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > DNSOP mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
