Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: Change the status of GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSSEC in the IETF stream to Historic

I agree new code points should gave new RFCs. I am ok with OBSOLETE or DEPRECATED Sent from my iPhone On Nov 29, 2023, at 17:18, Paul Wouters wrote: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023, Warren Kumari wrote: > So, the IANA has a question: > IANA Question --> What about the registrations that currently

Re: [DNSOP] IETF117 Chairs Actions

I need to double checkBut also stip on avoid fragmentation. I missed somethingTim Sent from my iPhoneOn Aug 18, 2023, at 13:07, Warren Kumari wrote:Heyya,Just confirming that I can start IESG Eval on draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures?I'm assuming so, but…WOn Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 6:57

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "Domain Verification Techniques using DNS"

John Paul is right. As an operator one thing I always obsess on in is the data in my zones. Why is it there , should it be, etc. Another example you may understand is “who created this incorrect DMARC record?” I’ve given them much much feedback. I am eager for others to sound off. And

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-02.txt

Peter There is no undesirable consequences in pushing new versions before they expire without changes. Actually i have an action item to review some of the discussion on this draft which is now on my short list as we push several of these other documents forward. Tim Sent from my iPhone

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-thomassen-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping

(No hats) I’ve read this draft and support adoption Tim Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 25, 2022, at 11:28, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > As announced during the DNSOP meeting this week at the IETF 113, we are > starting a Call for Adoption for the >

Re: [DNSOP] Question regarding RFC 8499

I’ve had several conversations with one of the 8499 authors a few months back and said that we need to adjust this. I let it drop but the topic was going to be part two f our chairs slides next week. The chairs did some reviewing of all Currently adopted documents as well. Thanks Tim

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

Can we like this draft *and* a RFC cleanup of 1034/1035? Though watching tcpm do this for 793 has been disheartening From my high tech gadget > On May 16, 2019, at 11:46, Michael J. Sheldon wrote: > >> On 5/16/19 3:23 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: >> Notice: This email is from an external sender.

Re: [DNSOP] Minimum viable ANAME

No I said I want to reset and work toward an interim. >From my high tech gadget > On Mar 26, 2019, at 15:35, Olli Vanhoja wrote: > > Did someone say that there will be a side meeting about mvp ANAME > during this week? If so, I couldn't find that from the calendar. > >

Re: [DNSOP] Further ANAME minimization /\ Ray convergence

From my high tech gadget > On Nov 8, 2018, at 06:30, Ray Bellis wrote: > >> On 08/11/2018 04:13, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> >> I can't stress this enough - when you see ALIAS records at zone cuts >> that point to a database server, already, then we've missed the >> "server specific" ball. > >

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-01.txt

Oh folks like my employer where half of the security teams scream and say no, and the other half want to see to collect threat intelligence information. From my high tech gadget > On Jul 28, 2018, at 15:43, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > @ISC, we have been discussing this since we started

Re: [DNSOP] QNAME minimisation on the standards track?

I’d like to see a more fleshed out operational considerations section. Tim As chair From my high tech gadget > On Jul 17, 2018, at 08:14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Greetings. With more resolvers implementing QNAME minimisation, and > even turning it on by default, we thought that this

Re: [DNSOP] abandoning ANAME and standardizing CNAME at apex

With all of you here. As an Operator who gets these requests regularly (just 10 minutes ago!) when you tell users the world of BIND/PowerDNS/NSD/Knot do not support such a mechanism they say “we’re off to use route 53. okthxbai “ I find it personally appalling we can spend so many cycles

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis

This draft was widely accepted in Singapore, and the chairs were waiting for a revision before starting a call for adoption. That revision took a few months but it has been done and DNSOP is ready to start a call for adoption. This draft addresess the bug found in the existing RFC. This starts a

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"? Tim On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:39 PM, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:22:33 +0200, > Petr Špaček wrote: > > > >> This is

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

t* ready for publication. There is no implementation > report available for review and consideration. > > Should the working group produce an implementation report and demonstrate > multiple implementations before April 15th, I’d ofcourse be willing to > reconsider my position. > > Kind regards,

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel we're ready to take this to WGLC. (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul) This starts a Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll- sentinel Current versions of the draft is available here:

[DNSOP] DNSOP Minutes IETF101

Hi I uploaded the minutes the other day and failed to send the email Big props to Paul Hoffman on taking notes. Take a look and make sure you were quoted fairly https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dnsop-00 I left a copy here for the git-inclined

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

An enterprise company with rather large zone which update often are "highly interested" in MIXFR. But we may be the exception rather than the rule. Tim On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:24 AM, bert hubert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:49:39PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

I would say that most things we have adopted in the past few years do have some implementations to reference. Not when drafts are adopted, but generally before we head to WGLC I've always wanted to see someone who implemented the option in some manner. But yes, agree. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at

Re: [DNSOP] Current DNS standards, drafts & charter

I should qualify my comments on Route 53 - I don't think they are something we should emulate, more of an example of how 3rd party vendors get away with an overly-minimal set of resource records. The words I have to describe them are generally not polite. Tim On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:38 AM,

[DNSOP] Current Document status,

All In advance of today's meeting, here's where we have our current document status. Comments, etc to the chairs Tim # DNSOP Chairs Status Updated: 20 March 2018 # Done ## WG chairs Work * [draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations] - update to reflect Victor's

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-03.txt

Dave First, thanks for resurrecting this for us. I think splitting draft into two parts probably makes sense after that last round of comments. However, we need to go find those App Area folks (hence cc'ing Murray here) and run this past them. If the group likes this split, we can progress

[DNSOP] DNSOP Presentation "The Camel"

All At the end of Tuesday's session we're having Bert Hubert from Power DNS give a talk on what he views "The Camel". He sent us a short abstract: "In past years, DNS has been enhanced with DNSSEC, QName Minimization, EDNS Client Subnet and in-band key provisioning through magic record types.

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-bootstrap-validator-00.txt

I will say that I tolerate Joe's hand waving, I can't speak for my co-chair. On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > Hi all, > > This draft from 2011 emerged blinking into the sunlight from the grave > where it expired, growling something about KSK rollovers

[DNSOP] Call for minute takers and jabber scribes

Hi As we get closer to Tuesday, I'd like to put out a call for minute takers and jabber scribes for DNSOP session. (We'll worry about thursday on Wednesday). thanks Tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

[DNSOP] Agenda for DNSOP, IETF101

Hi Here is the agenda we had just posted. Rough drafts will been sitting in the DNSOP GitHub repo as well. Final edits will happen over the weekend. We expect slides by Monday afternoon. # DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group ## IETF 101, London ### Session I * Date: 20 March 2018 *

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04.txt

(speaking not as chair but DNS operator) At the last OARC, my co-worker did a lightning talk on his deployment of MetaZones ( https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/27/session/7/contribution/39/material/slides/0.pdf ) He attempted to contact the authors of the catalog-zones draft (as did I) to talk

[DNSOP] Second Call for Agenda Time in London and Submission Reminder

All Just another call for those looking for Agenda time to drop the chairs a note (and a thank you to those who have done so, follow ups shortly). Also a reminder the draft cutoff is this Monday, March 5th at 2359 UTC (1859 EST, 1559 PST and 0859 JST March 6th). Please get your drafts in

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal

they have been addressed adequately, before moving on. thanks Tim On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 2:14 PM, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > https:/

Re: [DNSOP] Pinging the Attribute Leaf

I'm adding Dave as we have been in contact with him. He had taken the last set of responses and was working on how to integrate them into the draft. We keep hoping he will have something soon, or will reach out for assistance. Dave? Tim On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

The Badgering will continue! We're waiting because the chairs feel we can do a short WGLC and have this ready to go before London. Thank you all for adding pressure. Tim On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > On 12 Feb 2018, at 06:30, Tony Finch

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal

This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal Current versions of the draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal/ Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone feels the document is *not* ready for

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

Hi The call for adoption for this has ended and the groups has requested adoption. I will contact the authors about updating their draft with the new name as well as addressing open issues during the call. tim On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:23 AM, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

FYI, I'm taking notes of all the issues raised by folks in this thread (thank you!) and will hold the authors accountable in addressing them. tim On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I would like to see this draft adopted and worked on by the WG.

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel

All The author has rolled out a new version addressing comments from the meeting on Monday, and we feel it’s ready to move this along. This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huston-kskroll-sentinel/

[DNSOP] Draft Minutes from IETF100

Thanks again to Paul Hoffman for taking the minutes. please take a look to see if there are any updates that need to be made and let the chairs know. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/minutes-100-dnsop/ You can also just submit a pull request:

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options

Actually Wes, it was absolutely bad for me making the poor assumption on the choices aligned between the email and the slide. You are correct the preferred option we hear as the 16 bit value. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Geoff Huston

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error code options

To follow up from the meeting this morning, it sounded from the room that in the case of these four options, #4 was the one which makes the most sense. tim On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Folks, > > We were given feedback during the call for

[DNSOP] Jabber Scribes and Minute takers for DNSOP on Monday

Hi We're sending out the note requesting jabber scribes and minute takers for DNSOP. Also, there are a few laggards who need to send slides in. You know whom you are. See you bright and early Monday Morning! thanks, tim/suzanne ___ DNSOP mailing

Re: [DNSOP] Agenda for IETF100

Great question Paul and thanks for getting that on record. On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 2:59 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Can confirm, as can anyone willing to go to an Adobe Connect archive. For > the curious: > > https://participate.icann.org/p6u03rimy92/?launcher=false; >

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations

All The Working Group Last Call has ended on this draft two days ago, with two problems. First, there was not enough comments from folks calling it ready for publication, and second, there are two strong voices against publishing this document. With one against, we could work some rough

[DNSOP] Agenda topics for IETF100

All Please submit any request for presenting at IETF100 to the chairs. We'll be working on a draft agenda in the interim. thanks tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

The Call For Adoption ended some time ago, and I spent some time reading the comments. There is consensus to adopt this, *but* there is also a enough of an concern that some of the issues raised be addressed. We'll want to make sure all issues are addressed. tim On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:12

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

The adoption period finished sone time ago with strong consensus to adopt. Authors will want to upload their latest version. tim On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Marek Vavruša wrote: > I support the adoption of this document. Was there a discussion of any > actual

[DNSOP] IETF 100 Meeting slots

All We've been given two slots for IETF100, and currently more time then we requested. Our slots are: Monday 09:30 - 12:00 Thursday 15:50 - 17:50 We'll want to start thinking of agenda items, keeping in mind we have some curent drafts to get updated. tim

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations

>From talking with the authors and reading all the comments on the mailing lists, it appears that all outstanding issues have been addressed. This starts a Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations Current versions of the draft is available here:

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

Ted Thanks. The document still waffles, but it 'waffles less' than it did initially. But Mike is committed to working that and any other issue which may arise. tim On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > The document as written still waffles between insecure

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost

When the idea of having a Call for Adoption for this document came up, we thought long and hard about this one. However, the comments from the working group focused this document to address the specific issue of the local hostname. This starts a formal Call for Adoption for

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

August is over and my self-imposed holiday is over, so it's time to get busy again. We have this document marked as a candidate for adoption. This starts a formal Call for Adoption for draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale The draft is available here:

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error

This draft was the only one which seemed to have broad support in some form during the meeting last week. This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error The draft is available here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error-02 Please review this

[DNSOP] Minutes from Thursday Meeting

Thanks again to Mr, Hoffman from keeping copious notes. They are uploaded here: Minutes IETF99: dnsop and I included them below for the time-constrained. Please send any corrections to the chairs. thanks again tim

Re: [DNSOP] IETF 99: Call for agenda items, and draft cutoff reminder

Reminder on the deadline for submitting drafts is Monday 3 July at Midnight UTC. If you wish to have a slot and have not contacted us please drop an email to the chairs. I'm done with my NomCom commitments which have taken me away, and will be working on a draft agenda this weekend. thanks

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

Thanks tim On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:55 AM, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down, > but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off > a Call for Adoption on this document. (w

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

JINMEI I've noted your previous remarks as something I would take up with the authors. But thanks for the reminder. tim On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Mark Scholten <m...@streamservice.nl> wrote: > > From: tjw ietf [mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday,

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

There was a lot of consensus during our last meeting in Chicago that this should move forward, so it's time that we do so. This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements The draft is available here:

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-hunt-dnsop-aname

I'm caught up with my day job, and the discussion on this has died down, but it looks like the work is moving along smoothly, it's time to kick off a Call for Adoption on this document. (well, maybe late). This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname The draft is available here:

Re: [DNSOP] New draft for ALIAS/ANAME type

Thank You to Evan and Peter for working with Anthony on a merged draft. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Evan Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:08:06PM -, John Levine wrote: > > though ANAME is vastly less complex. It requires that an > > authoritative server include

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

Hi The Call for Adoption has ended and there was support to adopt this document and work out the handful of issues brought up. Thanks everyone for comments, etc. If the authors can upload a new version we;ll get that one squared away. thanks tim/suzanne On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:16 AM, tjw

Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-edns-clientid

Catching up with the discussion I like having two, well documented options. I do see where the option in David's draft has too many moving parts. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Dave Lawrence wrote: > On 30/03/2017 09:52, Bob Harold wrote: > >> Just a thought - would it be

[DNSOP] Updates from Monday Meeting

All We know we ran out of time, which is a regular problem for us. A combination of being too optimistic in our scheduling and too many people with interesting things to discuss. In the past we've tried to ask for multiple sessions, but with the pressure on slots we've always backed down. We

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption draft-wouters-sury-dnsop-algorithm-update

Hi The Call for Adoption ended some time ago with very little discussion in that period, but a significant and fruitful discussions since. Considering the strong hum of the room in Seoul and the conversations on this version, the chairs consider the draft adopted, If there are items that wish

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

All We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions. This starts a Call for Adoption for:

[DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

All During the first WGLC of draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any, several issues were raised by the working group that needed to be addressed. The Authors addressed the issues, but the changes are enough that there should be a second Working Group Last Call on the changes. This begins a Second WGLC for

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

, 2016 at 10:16 AM, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not just wade into this discussion... > > The draft is being present as "Informational", and the point here is to > document current working behavior in the DNS (for the past several years). > It is ob

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.txt

Thanks Paul, and double thanks to Matthijs for his diligence in wisely forcing this. The new version is minor, but significant. I don't feel that it needs a new WGLC, but I want to put the diff between the two versions here so folks may take a second look.

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wkumari-dnsop-ttl-stretching-00.txt

Mukund, While I agree with you, Joel has the right guidance on this; but also knowing the authors fairly well, I feel they would not send us down a road that will box the work into a corner. On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

Why not just wade into this discussion... The draft is being present as "Informational", and the point here is to document current working behavior in the DNS (for the past several years). It is obvious that some feel this draft is a large mistake, but like edns-client-subnet, more operators

Re: [DNSOP] Second Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse

Sigh, I did. Thank you Matthijs for keeping me honest. tim On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Matthijs Mekking <matth...@pletterpet.nl> wrote: > Tim, > > On 13-12-16 20:13, tjw ietf wrote: > >> All >> >> The process of WGLC for this document engaged the

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format

tim suzanne On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:09 AM, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > All > > The response from the room today was pretty positive this draft was worth > adopting and pursuing. We felt their was little benefit in waiting to > begin this Call for Adoption. &

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

All The authors have addressed all the outstanding issues with this draft, and the chairs feel this is ready for Working Group Last Call. There has been one issue raised which we feel the working group may have some opinion on this. Ondrej Sury raised this point: There's a small procedural

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format

All The response from the room today was pretty positive this draft was worth adopting and pursuing. We felt their was little benefit in waiting to begin this Call for Adoption. This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-dickinson-dnsop-dns-capture-format The draft is available here:

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6781 and double signature KSK rollover

I agree with Matthijs. Looking at 6781 that makes the most sense. tim On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > > > On 25-10-16 15:15, Marcos Sanz wrote: > >> Matthijs, >> >> my attention has been brought to the KSK rollover double-signature >>>

[DNSOP] Update on Current Work

All I wanted to give a quick update to the group on what work I have lined up in our process queue, and to get people start thinking about agenda items for Seoul, which is coming up in the next two months. I will state right now that I've made the decision that we will *not* be allowing any

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal

All Thanks for all the comments on this draft, the authors have even pushed out a new version during the process. The chairs consider this draft adopted. but it still needs some work. The authors should upload their new version to the data tracker thanks tim On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:39 PM,

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-02.txt

(speaking for myself only) In 5.1, I would think that I'd prefer a standard size, but that doesn't mean I should rely on it. For the moment on 5.3.1 . Maybe some text that "an implementer SHOULD sort their tags" but that mean that one can expect them that way. tim On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-06.txt

Thanks Donald, I'm going to work on the Shepherd writeup and have it out by Thursday. tim On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > Revised version has been uploaded. > > Thanks, > Donald > = > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd