On 4/6/14, 4:25 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > (catching up, and I'll jump into the middle of things) > > On 4/4/14, 4:59 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 05:39:58PM -0400, >> Suzanne Woolf <[email protected]> wrote >> a message of 69 lines which said: >> >>> 4. Publish documents on extensions or protocol maintenance to the DNS >>> Protocol, with a focus on the operational impacts of >>> such changes. Act as clearinghouse for discussion or provide >>> advice to ADs >>> and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, DNSSEC, record >>> synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other >>> applications. >> Do we all agree that it may cover, in the future, the work which is >> currently discussed on the dns-privacy mailing list? > > Short Answer: yes. Long Answer: if what comes out is a new protocol or a > major spin of the protocol, the idea is to delegate that to a new > working group.
As with the rapid spinup of dnssd I think we can be confident that the internet area remains the right place and has the will to do new DNS work, and we can and should address the undertaking of new protocol work through that channel. > The idea is to keep this specifically vague that allows new things that > come up to be addressed, rather than being constrained by the charter. >>> 6. Publish documents that attempt to better define the overlapping >>> area among the public DNS root, DNS-like names as used in local >>> or restricted >>> naming scopes, and the 'special names' registry that IETF >>> manages, and how they will interact moving forward. Work in a >>> liaison capacity to ICANN to assist in this. >> I strongly dislike "the public DNS root" as if there were only one >> (technically, any root is a root and, for dnsop, it does not matter if >> it is the USG root or any other, the DNS operational issues are the >> same) and I dislike even more "DNS-like names", which seems to imply >> there are inferior names. www.foobar.local is a domain name, even if >> it is not resolved through the DNS. >> >> I suggest: Publish documents that attempt to better define the >> overlapping area among the DNS and other resolution protocols which >> use domain names (and may have gateways to the DNS), especially in the >> context of the 'special names' registry that IETF manages (RFC 6761). >> >> > This isn't a bad option, but this whole line item is a giant ball of > pain but something we've been asked to help facilitate. We have some > ways to go it seems. from my vantage point documenting the attracive nuisance that exists today is one problem. what to do about the existing problems is another. how to allow for future inovation without tha same consequences as before is the third. > tim > > _______________________________________________ > 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
