WOW! This could be a week of meetings... I guess it is not time to fold yet... :-P
Patrik On 2014-02-21 18:17, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > As we look towards the meeting in London, we have several items in > progress, which we've organized here from the most specific and > administratively simple tasks to the broadest discussion topics. > > Not everything called out here is on the London agenda, but we’ve tried > to round up everything that’s in progress as work for the WG, formally > or (in a few cases) informally. We expect to send this out periodically, > not least so people have a chance to call us on it if we drop stuff. > > thanks, > Your Chairs > > > From our existing charter: > > 1. RESPSIZE draft > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize/) > This item has been in our charter for a very long time, and was at > one time considered almost ready for publication but stalled there. > There's been recent interest in dusting it off and getting it shipped, > and with the help of the previous authors and a new volunteer, a new > version has been published. It’s been suggested we might want to add > some more material on DNSSEC and EDNS0, since the previous version only > dealt extensively with the impact on referral size of adding AAAA > records and the bulk of the document was written before the root was > signed or ICANN's registry contracts were written to require DNSSEC for > new gTLDs. > > Agenda in London: flag open items, get reviewers, get a timeline for > finishing > > > 2. PRIMING draft > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/) > We’ve also got a new rev of this draft so we can resolve the open > questions and get this published also. > > Agenda in London: flag open items, get reviewers, get a timeline for > finishing > > 3. AS112 operations: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dname/(WG item) > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jabley-dnsop-rfc6304bis/(new) > > Some additional “bits and pieces” re: AS112 operations. We need > reviewers to move forward with the DNAME one, and for 6304bis if we want > to adopt it. > > Agenda in London: determine momentum for getting these reviewed, > revised, and published. If not they will be dropped. > > 4. CDS and related: what are we doing about the topic of DNSSEC in-band > key maintenance? This has previously been somewhat contentious and seems > to have stalled without resolution. We now have current versions of two > drafts and would like to make progress on resolving differences. > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-child-syncronization/ > > 5. 100.64.0.0/10 to reserved list > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303/ > Stalled in WGLC on an administrative issue of overlapping IANA > registries. Chairs will review discussion and propose a way forward > soon; no WG action required > > > NEW TOPICS: > Passive DNS data format: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dulaunoy-kaplan-passive-dns-cof/: > needs review, call for adoption > Authority server placement: no i-d yet; agenda time requested, needs review > > FOR DISCUSSION, including possible charter revision: > > 1. Privacy drafts > There are *at least* four i-ds and a BOF in London specifically for > discussion of privacy and confidentiality with regards to the protocol > and operations of DNS: > > Stephane Bortzmeyer's problem statement draft > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy/) is > reasonably on-charter for us. > Stephane's solutions > drafthttp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-privacy-sol/) > Peter Koch's draft on information leakage in the DNS > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koch-perpass-dns-confidentiality/) > Wouter Wijngaards' draft on opportunistic encryption in the DNS > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wijngaards-dnsop-confidentialdns/) > (plus a few other documents) > > We need to decide what we think a useful contribution on this broad > topic would be for DNSOP. Stephane's problem statement draft seems > in-scope and we'd like to call for adoption. Protocol changes as > described in two of the drafts probably need a new WG. In between, this > topic provides an opportunity for us to consider reasonable updates to > our charter given evident demand from the community to examine DNS in > light of current privacy concerns. > ** This is a major item for the agenda in London; please come prepared > to discuss ** > > 2. Special names > There are two current drafts requesting additions to the Special Use > Names registry as per RFC > 6761,http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names/andhttp://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds/. > The process described in RFC 6761 calls for "IESG action," and the IESG > has asked for DNSOP input, including that we consider adopting these > drafts as WG items. We have already had some discussion on these drafts, > and the current process, based on RFC 6761, makes whether to add these > names to the registry the IESG’s decision. We will continue to discuss > these drafts on the mailing list and provide our advice/observations to > the IESG. > > There is some interest separately in the broader architectural > concerns around “what should we do with requests/needs for namespaces > that look like DNS names, but aren’t?” As it looks like these uses of > DNS-like namespaces by non-DNS protocols will continue to evolve, and > the RFC 6761 process already seems problematic, we need to consider > whether there’s work to be done in fine-tuning the IETF’s response to > these requests from protocol developers who are trying to do the right > thing, don’t want to simply appropriate namespaces a priori, but are not > actually trying to do DNS protocol or operations and simply want to > avoid incompatibility. > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ogud-appsawg-multiple-namespaces/ > > > DNSEXT discussions > - tcp keep-alives > - tcp query-chaining > - DNS cookies > - TLS for DNS > > DNS Cookies & TLS for DNS > > Donald Eastlake has generated a new version of the DNS Cookies draft, > which incorporated many comments. Several other contributors have also > written a new draft on the use of TLS for DNS over TCP. While these are > out of scope, we feel with the privacy and confidentiality work > swirling, there seems to be room to at least have the discussion. > > > New charter > > DNSOP has been around for awhile, without a recent charter revision even > as topics including privacy, root zone expansion, and changes in the > operational environment have become increasingly important. Our Esteemed > AD has been very open with us pulling things in for discussion, > especially if there are operational impacts from such things. We're > working on a new charter that would include a couple of specific items > the WG has already adopted or considered, and a shift in scope to allow > DNSOP to provide a home for problem statements related to DNS in much > the way v6ops does for the IPv6-related groups and issues. Your > suggestions are appreciated. > > ** This is a major item for the agenda in London; please come prepared > to discuss ** > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
