All,
First, thanks everyone for a very successful and productive WG meeting at IETF
95 last week— 2 sessions, 16 drafts on the agenda, plenty of good discussion.
We’ve got a couple of calls for adoption and WGLC to kick off in the next week
or two; we'll do that, as usual, in separate threads.
As previously described, the chairs have been considering the best way to
follow up on the work done to date on special use names.
The drafts we'll be discussing:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-02.txt
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-00.txt
The two high points are: the design team is done; and we now need comment on
the problem statement drafts so we know how to proceed.
1. We believe the design team has been successful in meeting its deliverable of
producing a problem statement draft. So we've concluded the design team as a WG
activity, with thanks to the authors for their work.
2. We now have two problem statement drafts
(draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-02 and draft-tldr-sutld-ps). We're
seeking comment on both. In particular, we'd like to hear
* where you think the gaps are, and
* which draft (if either) you'd like to see the WG adopt
The goal is to have picked a problem statement and be starting to gather
possible solutions by the time we meet in Berlin for IETF 96.
So, please review both drafts and send your comments to the list. We’re
particularly interested in which draft, if any, you’d like to see adopted by
the WG.
best,
Suzanne & Tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
