So, clearly we are not going to be having an interim on the week of January 30th. For those trying to follow along at home, I heard (off-list, through a 3rd party) that the interim is supposed to be virtual. That means that it only needs one week notice, but we've missed that deadline as well.
There was discussion of having an interim before BA, then before Berlin, then before Seoul. The Special Use Names topic was specifically not given time on the agenda in Seoul, instead being "saved" for the interim (see my Jan 16 email, and below). We've repeatedly been told that this is an important topic (and we see pressure from e.g homenet, ipv4only, SSAC090, etc), and that it will get the attention that it deserves -- but this doesn't seem to be happening.... On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think updating alt-tld draft to point to the specific problems in sutld-ps > to be useful. > > I am holding out hope that alt-tld will be unstuck and kicked down the road. > I also am holding out for a pony. Yes, but unlike a pony there is a really easy way to get movement on alt-tld -- you clicked the "Park" button on 2015-11-17 -- it can be unparked equally easily. I'd been told numerous times that it would be unparked and WGLCed once a design team was formed, then once an initial document was published, then once a document was actually adopted; this hasn't happened. If alt-tld had been moved through the working group as expected, it would have provided an opportunity for people to experiment and take some of the pressure off -- for example, home.alt *might* have been a reasonable option for homenet. I'd been (mostly!) patiently waiting for this to be unparked with the understanding that the SUN topic would actually get attention, but I don't really see this happening. Can alt-tld be unparked so that we can actually discuss it? Because the process has been going on for so long, I thought it would be useful to provide a timeline. The timeline is abbreviated; if I go back through mail on this topic to add more detail, I will just become further disappointed: ~ 2013. Topic of Special Use Names began simmering - growing concern/realization that issues will arise regarding in which context names should be resolved. Nov 13, 2013 - draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00 published. February 10, 2014 - draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-00 published. May 2015 - DNSOP Interim meeting June 2015 - draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld adopted July 2015 - IETF93 (Prague). Design Team announced. Call for volunteers for design team[0] October 2015 - draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem published Nov 2015 - IETF94 (Yokohama). Concerns raised about status and progress, lack of replies to the volunteers, repeated statements that the process would be transparent and that it would move along.[1] Nov 2015 - draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld parked -- "Waiting for the 6761 design team to sort out the bigger issues before moving this forward." April 2016 - IETF95 (Buenos Aires). ARCING BoF -- large amounts of useful content here, reasonable support for .alt. April 2016 - draft-tldr-sutld-ps published. Joint presentation. April 2016 - numerous requests to start Call for Adoption / some other way to help WG choose between adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem and tldr-sutld-ps. Told CfA would start before[3] IETF96, then would occur during IETF96, then "immediately after IETF96" July 2016 - IETF96 (Berlin): draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem: Geoff Huston, draft-tldr-sutld-ps: Ted Lemon, draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld: Warren Kumari. Discussions of an interim [4]. 12 Sept 2016 - Call for adoption stated[5]. 7 Oct 2016 - CfA completes, draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld adopted. Nov 2016 - IETF97 (Seoul) - topic specifically not given time, with the understanding an interim meeting would be held soon specifically for this topic. From the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13pGB24g--k#t=6m52s: “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 supposed 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 have to wait 4 weeks between announcing when an interim is, and when is. Now you are pushing towards xmas” Chairs: “Yes, or even new years. Yup, should have said after the 1st. Key point is that we are not waiting till Chicago before we do anything else with this, but it’s not immediate either”. Jan 12th 2017 - "getting back to our work on special use names" says want to WGLC SUTLD before IETF98, and that there will be an interim "during the week of January 30 for further work on this topic". I heard (off-list) that this is a virtual, which needs 7 days instead of 30, but this will still need to be scheduled today or tomorrow (for Feb 2nd or 3rd) if it is still intended to happen next week. So: I hope we can make some substantive progress on the Special Use Names topic. I know I have mentioned this a number of times, and have received repeated apologies and reassurances that the topic will be moved along and that alt-tld will be unparked and moved to WGLC. We had to request the CfA on alt-tld more than 10 times before that was started, and had also made numerous requests for WGLC before it was parked. Special Use Names was a hard topic to begin with -- it has been made much, much harder and more contentious by the delays and similar -- people have either become apathetic and no longer participate, or increasingly entrenched in their positions. At a minimum, I hope that the interim meeting will be scheduled soon, and alt-tld unparked. There's just no reason for further delays. W [0]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg15679.html [1]: “ Suzanne: We have clear ideas about how it will be transparent Not sure how to implement this, but make sure whatever we do is transparent Regular meetings, will post minutes Collection point for the input from the WG Do the work, not make the decisions Suzanne: doesn't have to take time in the meetings, but will do whatever it takes to make progress … Warren: The chairs asked for volunteers, but we never heard back Is the design team going to grow? Suzanne: the process has not held together well so far Wanted to be sure the work got started Jari Arkko: IESG view is that it is a problem that the IESG should not fix, it should be in the community. Should discuss the process. “" [3]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17332.html (and more in person) [4]: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-dnsop [5]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17983.html [6]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg19114.html > > tim > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 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. >> >> I read SAC090 and also recommend that others read it. The second >> recommendation affects the IETF and, specifically, would address some of the >> problems listed in draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps. >> >> I've reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps and added some text citing SAC090; >> we'll publish that new revision soon. >> >> > >> > 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. >> >> Now that we have draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps, would there be any benefit to >> revising draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld to point to the specific problems .alt >> would address? >> >> <pedantic>I was going to suggest 1,$g/alternate/alternative/, but >> consulting Merriam-Webster informs me that "For all intents and purposes, >> alternate and alternative are synonymous. Oh, well.</pedantic> >> >> - Ralph >> >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
