Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

2016-02-23 Thread Geoff Huston
> On 24 Feb 2016, at 1:51 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > >> RFC6761 in the context of root zone was a huge MISTAKE, > >> We have wasted enough time on 6761 fallouts, it is time for the misery to >> end. > > I dont think anyone disagrees. But wi

Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

2016-02-23 Thread Paul Wouters
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Suzanne Woolf wrote: To your request for time for your draft: we're not sure yet where it fits but the chairs have requested two sessions on the Buenos Aires agenda, so we can have a dedicated slot for the attempt to move forward on special use names. That's for doing th

Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

2016-02-23 Thread Suzanne Woolf
On Feb 23, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > >> We should have something to point squatters to and that is where ".alt" fits >> in. > > But proceeding with that is also on hold because it would actually use > the 6761 process to get passe

Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

2016-02-23 Thread Suzanne Woolf
George, Before this discussion goes too much further: The design team was asked to produce a problem statement. They produced a -00 draft, and we expect a -01 based on what they've heard in Yokohama and on the list imminently. The -00 is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-sp

Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

2016-02-23 Thread Paul Wouters
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: RFC6761 in the context of root zone was a huge MISTAKE,  We have wasted enough time on 6761 fallouts, it is time for the misery to end.  I dont think anyone disagrees. But with various parties working on the fix, the question is should dnsop pu

Re: [DNSOP] Can I have a slot in the DNSOP WG to discuss draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed

2016-02-23 Thread Ólafur Guðmundsson
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:21 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: >> >> Face to face time is rare. It also does not include everyone that's on >> the list. So where possible, discussion on the lists is always preferred. > > > A good bar. A high

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-06.txt

2016-02-23 Thread Sara Dickinson
> On 22 Feb 2016, at 23:24, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > Strictly speaking the additional section can have anything the > server feels is relevent including a OPT record (this in RFC 1034). > Clients are expected to cope with anything added to the additional > section. > > 6. Using local data o