On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:47 PM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > It's time to get back to our work on special use names. As the chairs see > it, here's what we need to do between now and IETF 98 (end of March). > We'll be having a DNSOP WG interim meeting shortly, see below. > > 1. We need to advance the problem statement document, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/. Please > review and comment on the list. We'd like to have a WGLC on it before IETF > 98. > > > Some additional background. > The ICANN SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) recently (Dec > 22nd) published SAC090 - > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf (full > disclosure: I'm an author). > > It is short, and easily readable -- I'd strongly encourage you to read it > (but I'll provide some teasers to tempt you!). > It notes that "a central authority to control the way in which domain > names are used in all contexts-is both infeasible and undesirable given the > robustly non-centralized way in which the Internet ecosystem evolves", and > that a coordinated management of the namespace might be best. > It also finds that uncoordinated use leads to ambiguity (and instability), > and that currently ICANN and the IETF (and others) all allocate from a > single namespace. > It recommends that ICANN > 1: create criteria for determining what labels can be TLDs. > 2: figure out how to coordinate with a: the IETF declaring names as > "special" (6761) and b: other "private use" names. > > This is a very quick summary, please go actually read it - there are only > ~6 pages of actual content, but it recommends coordination with the IETF. > So, please, let's try and get this moving -- I'd hate it if the IETF ends > up looking more dysfunctional than ICANN :-P > > > Also, ~3 days ago someone posted about .onion (and Special Use Names) on > hackernews -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13370488 . This topic > is still of interest to a bunch of people... > > > > 2. Now that we have a working problem statement, we'd like to see > proposals on possible changes to IETF procedures to resolve the issues > we've raised. We're looking for on-list discussion, preferably with posted > I-Ds. > > These proposals do not have to be limited to work for the DNSOP WG; they > may also include work we think belongs in other WGs, or requests to the > IESG or the IAB (such as liaison statements to groups outside of the IETF). > > We have had a proposal, for the ALT TLD, before us for some time now, > which we put aside while we worked on the problem statement. As part of > assessing solutions, we need to review > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ and determine > what the WG wants to do with it. Comments to the list, please. > > > Yes please. The document is still parked, but please send me comments *on > the draft* and I'll try keep track of them to incorporate. I know that > there is much background which can be culled, I'll post a new version to > GitHub with that done soon. > ... and I just posted a new version at https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld Please take a look and provide any feedback. This document has been in limbo for a really long time - I apologize if I have forgotten any of the comments -- please resend, or just provide pointers to the emails and I'll go reread them. We *know* that this doesn't solve everyone's issues, but, had it existed, it may have provided an option for e.g homenet.alt. Also, we will need to decide what to do about the insecure delegation question -- .onion didn't need one, but perhaps we do? This will add an interesting wrinkle to the whole "coordination with ICANN" discussion. > > W > > > > 3. We're scheduling an interim WG meeting during the week of January 30 > for further work on this topic. We'll provide some possible days/times to > the list for feedback shortly, and we can't promise to accomodate > everyone's schedule constraints but will do our best. > > Interim WG meetings must be announced at least four weeks before the meeting -- RFC 2418 section 3.1 and https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html. When I initially read the above I figured you might mean a *virtual* interim, but remembered some discussion on this from the Seoul meeting, and so went to the recordings to check - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13pGB24g--k#t=6m52s Suzanne: "Worth noting that, as the IESG pointed out today, future progress does not need to wait on a final version of a problem statement document, but we did want to get one adopted and relatively supported before we moved on. If people have forgotten, the alt-tld document that was parked pending a problem statement. We will be looking if it is time to unpark that. We won't be discussing this topic further today. But we are planning an interim in a few weeks that will attempt to sort out possible recommendations, if any, for further action. Now that we have a problem statement and active effort on it. But that's the status of that topic -- we haven't abandoned it, frankly we can't; we promised the IETF that we would say something, even if it's "We don't know what to say". But there has been progress, and we're not talking about it further today." Terry Manderson: "Wearing my IntAD hat, responsible AD for Homenet. Please be aware that there will be a 6761 app coming forward rapidly, and you may want to prioritize within that space please." Paul Hoffman (DNSOP secretary): "Wearing my process weenie hat; you know you have to wait 4 weeks between announcing when an interim is, and when is. Now you are pushing towards xmas" Suzanne Woolf: "Or even New Years" Tim: "Or even New Years. I should have said probably after the 1st. I didn't realize it was already the middle of November" Suzanne: Key point is that we are not waiting till Chicago before we do anything else with this, but it's not immediate either". So, from this exchange, I'm assuming that this is actually a real interim; this makes sense, because the topic feels like it requires a real interim - handling this level of discussion on a confernce call / webex would be very challenging, and would defeat much of the point -- we need actual face-to-face discussion. 4 weeks from now is, I believe, the week for Feb 13th -- I was hoping that the interim could be colocated with a meeting where many of the standard set of people would be anyway (to cut down on travel costs, and possibly take advantage of existing hotel / conference space availability (many times sponsors get the use of a conference room at a location)). Unfortunately NANOG is the week of Feb 5th (too early), NDSS (2017-02-26 - 2017-03-01) may be a possibility, and at least *some* of the usual folk will be there. ICANN (2017-03-11 - 2017-03-17, Copenhagen) could be a possibility, but that is getting close to IETF 98 (2017-03-26 - 2017-03-31). Assuming that this is a real (not virtual) meeting I *may* be able to provide space in NYC; Mountain View; Reston, VA (15 min from IAD); London; or Zurich. W best, > Suzanne & Tim > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
