On 3/15/17, 20:22, "DNSOP on behalf of Russ Housley" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-03 still references
>I-D.lewis-domain-names, but I have not seen ant WG Last Call for that
>document. What is the plan?
Just accidently saw this...I haven't been reading DNSOP much recently.
FWIW, the document ("-domain-names-") was informally attached to the IAB's
Names and Identifier's Program, that program was recently scuttled by the IAB
like, maybe, 2-3 weeks ago. I had been wondering (but more tied up with this
week's ICANN meeting) what happens next, and haven't gotten around to dealing
with that. In that sense "Good Question."
The domain-names draft was never considered for a DNSOP WG document as it is
mostly about how this is not a DNS problem. In 2015, I did get comments from
folks on this list and then for most of 2016 the discussion was under the IAB
program. There wasn't much discussion which is the prime reason the document
was in a suspended, waiting state.
The document currently has two pieces. One is the historical narrative and
written to justify clarifying domain names, with "clarifying" being an action
not to be undertake without much consideration. (Having written two
clarifications, I've learned.) The other piece is where I wanted discussion,
defining domain names.
I could edit the document to include just the first piece and submit it to the
Independent Stream whatever, Editor. There's not much reason not to do that -
it just hadn't happened while the IAB program was in place (potentially
adopting the document). On the other hand, I was still "discovering" some of
the elements of the relevant history as late as December based on the only set
of comments I'd received in months (got it in private email in September).
What are the chances that the Independent Stream Editor will bounce this
document towards DNSOP? So - as a question to the chairs - is it worth DNSOP
adopting this document (covering the history) at the risk of it being out of
scope for the charter, or is it better to, if the Independent Stream Editor
bounces this to DNSOP, reply with a "it's not our bailiwick?"
I suppose in any case there will be an IETF-wide last call before the document
stands a chance of being a vetted, published document. I've just never thought
of any other vetting (WG) to be done.
Ed
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
