Dear working group,
an excerpt of IETF 66's minutes shows:
Presentation by Joe Abley covers
- draft-jabley-as112-being-attacked-help-help-00.txt
- draft-jabley-as112-ops-00.txt
- Related work: draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones
- Contains many more zones than AS 112
- No current good process for adding new zones to AS 112
- No process for new transports for AS 112, e.g. adding IPv6
- Adoption by WG?
Of the people in the room ~10 are involved in running AS 112 instances
and ~40 have read the AS112 drafts.
Subject of further discussion was what the WG was expected to do given that
the documents seemed almost ready. The authors felt that the dnsop wg
was the broadest forum (compared to NANOG, RIPE, ...) and also the best
approximation of AS112 operators. Also, Joe felt suggested that AS112
was IANA sponsored central infrastructure.
Target status of these documents would be "Informational", including an
IETF Last Call.
This is a request to the WG to express an opinion on adopting the
different AS112 related work items as a new "AS112 basket", pending AD
approval, i.e. adding AS112 related issues to our charter, currently
consisting of the following tasks
0) draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones
This Draft is in post-WGLC phase already
1) draft-jabley-as112-being-attacked-help-help-00.txt
"I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG"
This draft may serve as an Informational RFC, potentially in the FYI
subseries (see FYI 1/RFC 1150).
2) draft-jabley-as112-ops-00.txt
AS112 Nameserver Operations
This draft would cover operation of name servers particpating in the AS112
project, aiming at Informational status (likely with IETF wide Last Call)
3) [no draft available yet]
"Updating the zones/transports covered by AS112 servers"
This new work item would deal with defining a mechanism to control the
set of zones covered by project AS112 servers, including new transports
like IPv6.
If you have an opinion whether the dnsop WG should address the overall
issue of project AS112 <http://public.as112.net/> operations, please
state it on the wg mailing list with some reasoning. Please also indicate
whether you'd like to volunteer as a reviewer for one or more of the
mentioned Internet-Drafts (1-3). This is not a Last Call on drafts (1) and (2),
so I'd like to ask that a discussion of specific text portions or pros and cons
be postponed until a decision regarding the general direction has been made.
The authors have offered (1) and (2) for adoption as WG items. Draft (3)
would have to be specified and would need editors and reviewers as well.
Again, this is to be seen in the general context of rechartering the WG
and will need AD approval.
Thanks,
Peter
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
