[09:05:29] --- suresh has joined
[09:05:33] --- suresh has left
[09:14:11] --- ietf-wg-dnsop has joined
[09:32:05] --- ietf-wg-dnsop has left: Disconnected
[09:46:05] --- jjmbcom has joined
[10:08:51] --- jjmbcom has left: Disconnected
[16:57:57] --- venaas has joined
[17:08:39] --- suresh has joined
[17:08:45] --- mstjohns has joined
[17:10:45] --- ripple has joined
[17:10:59] <ripple> Aloha nui loa...
[17:11:43] --- ggm has joined
[17:11:56] --- raj has joined
[17:12:52] <ggm> I can scribe a bit in here if people want.
[17:13:26] --- mo7sen has joined
[17:13:55] <ripple> ggm: Is there another place where someone should be scribing? Is this not the "official" jabber room?
[17:15:14] <ggm> well I only mean that I am not the real scribe for WG notes.
[17:15:33] <ggm> Peter Koch in the chair..
[17:16:04] --- mo7sen has left: Logged out
[17:16:16] --- mo7sen has joined
[17:16:46] --- jaap has joined
[17:17:07] --- levigner has joined
[17:17:20] --- marka-isc has joined
[17:17:24] <ggm> draft status' being pointed to on the tools.ietf.org web page
[17:17:24] --- frodek has joined
[17:17:27] --- suz has joined
[17:17:48] <ggm> sam weiler is complaining that the tools agenda isn't the same as the one he has
[17:18:17] --- liman has joined
[17:18:31] --- ogud has joined
[17:18:53] --- Olaf has joined
[17:19:12] --- narten has joined
[17:19:19] <ggm> reviewing status
[17:19:50] <ggm> backstepped to requirements issues
[17:20:11] --- RussMundy has joined
[17:21:36] --- lixia has joined
[17:21:36] <ggm> alain; clarification on draft moratorium proposal
[17:22:12] <ggm> robA anything listed as charter item. anything taken on as WG item, continue with, get people to commit to review, if we can't get review, its dead. can pub as indiv.
[17:22:32] <ggm> alain will apply to some docs, draft-foo- want to adopt to draft-ietf.
[17:22:42] <ggm> rob want completion, dont care on name
[17:22:51] <ggm> peter will be asking for volunteers, consent to adopt
[17:23:24] <ggm> pekka maybe different approach useful. require reviews from authors
[17:23:25] <ggm> Olaf.
[17:23:57] <ggm> emptying stack may be bad idea. if useful, apply gating function to get work into group.
[17:24:23] <ggm> kessins AD ops&mgt. have to be precise. potentially useful items need to be clarified
[17:24:56] <ggm> Liman. propose think in terms of assigning small teams to shepard through. single-ed doesn;t work always well
[17:25:08] --- cmurph has joined
[17:25:21] <ggm> Peter specific docs in mind? [liman no]
[17:25:55] <ggm> peter comment regarding potential new items. not beaurocacy, if work brought to us, pressing need, WG agrees and review is committed, then fair.
[17:26:01] <ggm> lots of potential new work on list
[17:26:09] <ggm> Olaf I agree hum is not sufficient to take up new work
[17:27:06] <ggm> Olaf key is 'stack is empty' issue
[17:27:21] --- jschmid has joined
[17:27:30] <ggm> Sam W. not sure understand proposal. hering moratorium. hearing metric for new items. can you re-state please?
[17:28:05] <ggm> roba. go through list of WG items. for each one, finding <x> willing to review, or have reviewed. have too many drafts. want to reduce. Olafi proposed new mod: new work same criteria, not empty queue. not lock out
[17:28:18] <ggm> rob any strong objects?
[17:28:50] <ggm> back to draftss beyond WGLC.
[17:28:58] <ggm> Peter.
[17:29:06] <ggm> ipv6-dns0config is in RFC-ed Q
[17:29:28] <ggm> dnssec op practices waiting for chairs input.
[17:29:47] <ggm> Olaf as author, comments in WGLC, may have met submission deadline, ready for IETF last call. Oh its inf. may not need.
[17:29:54] <ggm> Roba WG still supports, but to be sure, check..
[17:30:07] <ggm> hands read. [many[ push forward [many] meets test
[17:30:26] <ggm> ipv6 dns issues draft.
[17:30:29] --- mstjohns has left
[17:30:42] <ggm> Kessins doc in IESG. passed most IESG except one AD. stuck. need to resolve some issues
[17:30:47] <ggm> process too slow
[17:30:55] <ggm> expect to put on IESG agenda. after this meeting
[17:31:40] <ggm> Mosen: Q about ipv6-dns-config. requirement to compare methods & afterwards have some recommendation in impl/deployment?
[17:31:53] <ggm> have not seen anything going beyond this objective comparison. is WG considering anything else?
[17:32:33] <ggm> ROb history, WG is done with it. mission to write issues no consensus, just record. IESG interested as input to future decision to charter new WG. but not yet been done. not this WG problem.
[17:32:53] <ggm> dns-bad-dns-res(olver) behaviour.
[17:33:28] <ggm> sent request to WG week ago, passed WGLC while ago. some comments incorperated. one week post last call with no additional comments and no dangling Qs. ready to ship unless ..
[17:33:39] <ggm> [nem con]
[17:33:44] <ggm> Active WG drafts
[17:33:50] <ggm> Server ID. 05., Suze
[17:34:25] <ggm> Suze error in agenda cos its at WGLC, some substantive comments reflected in current version. sufficient to advance?
[17:34:32] <ggm> I think this group done, move on.
[17:34:45] <ggm> move reqts to DNSEXT
[17:35:01] --- mstjohns has joined
[17:35:11] <ggm> Olaf. given DNSEXT nsid draft went beyond WGLC is this still needed? Ambivalent. publish is fine
[17:35:50] <ggm> Peter Hum to move out the door:publish
[17:35:54] <ggm> [hums]
[17:36:11] <ggm> rob checks readership
[17:36:23] <ggm> inaddr-required.
[17:36:31] <ogud> hums are in favor of publishing the documnent
[17:37:25] <ggm> peter checks for readership. few. more for older drafts.
[17:37:31] <ggm> peter checks for active work.
[17:37:42] <ggm> olaf. willing to commit to reading. but not a status to move forward
[17:38:03] <ggm> 5-6 commit to review.
[17:38:05] <ggm> will take to ML
[17:38:33] <ggm> dns resp size . v2. from rootops
[17:39:14] --- FDupont has joined
[17:40:14] <ggm> old drafts
[17:40:18] <ggm> Geoff's 6to4 draft
[17:40:28] <ggm> originally IAB work item
[17:40:49] <ggm> trying to get 2002 delegation to ip6.arpa. IAB said 'write spec' -then IAB wanted review.
[17:41:30] <ggm> draft moved to this WG. spun to 3 revisions, comments by 4-5 people. then not clear what to do, let expire. service is now running, in final test and early production. adhoc IPv6 grp formed by IAB
[17:41:43] <ggm> adhoc group offered recommendation should be considered, revived, to publish.
[17:42:03] <ggm> as informational. proposal: cool to take on, had review, may be close to WGLC. push as informational
[17:42:08] <ggm> Olaf. published elsewhere.
[17:42:09] <ggm> Geoff no
[17:42:11] <ggm> Ed
[17:42:39] <ggm> how is this different from EPP/SECDNS draft. came here as non0-WG item, reviewed here, done, didn't become, just went to IESG as indiv. submit. may have enough review already.
[17:42:51] <ggm> Geoff. when I said 'would be cool' -I was telling you adhoc grp recommendation
[17:43:01] <ggm> make wG item, push as informational.
[17:43:17] <ggm> Geoff. have had review. close to WGLC.
[17:43:32] --- stephenfarr has joined
[17:43:34] <ggm> draft has been altered to reflect comments already. spec integrates comments too
[17:43:40] <ggm> pekka
[17:44:04] <ggm> useful doc. don't have strong opinion on status. concern here is, take on, like to make sure, when published as RFC, service described is
[17:44:14] <ggm> actually what it describes, no disconnect between spec and service
[17:44:33] <ggm> Geoff. can't give undertaking. not IETF service. conform to spec isn't going to be given.
[17:44:51] <ggm> conforms to spec now.
[17:45:04] <narten> which doc is being discussed?
[17:45:35] <suz> 6to4-reverse-dns
[17:45:35] <ggm> 6to4 reverse.
[17:45:45] <ggm> Olaf want changes incorperated in service if raised here?
[17:45:52] --- dblacka has joined
[17:46:28] <ggm> SamW.
[17:46:50] <ggm> want to repeat Olaf's Q. if it has sufficient review. why bring to us again? why not just do indiv. submit?
[17:47:14] <ggm> Geoff because the adhoc wg wanted the recommendation brought in.
[17:47:24] <ggm> have to ask kurtis why. I am messenger
[17:47:44] <ggm> roba. what we've heard, group asking us to own it, they don't want to.
[17:48:14] <ggm> secondly. pekka/geoff discussion. if doc describes service, service is not going to change just because document does. if we think something is wrong in document, can phrase as 'good to change when..'
[17:48:50] <ggm> MarkA as doc describing whats there. fine to go ahead. but can do it in DNS. dn't need http
[17:49:01] <ggm> Olaf. take route rob described
[17:49:10] <ggm> Liman. why?
[17:49:18] <ggm> Rob because IAB asked us to
[17:50:01] --- stephenfarr has left
[17:50:34] <ggm> Sam opposed to publish. somebody else can
[17:50:45] <ggm> Kurtis
[17:52:10] <ggm> (ok I admit it. I missed what Kurtis said)
[17:52:17] <ggm> Kessins
[17:52:41] <ggm> yes we can do indiv. but don't like. fits charter. there is interest, people working on it. backing to publish.
[17:52:48] <ggm> Rob some people object. looking for resolution
[17:53:12] <narten> I wish I had been in the room for this discussion... :-(
[17:53:20] <ggm> Geoff. yes can do indiv. output rate is significantly lower. trash docyment is outcome. or can do end runaround
[17:53:25] <ggm> want something said? I can say it.
[17:53:36] <ggm> this is a dns ops draft if thats what you want
[17:53:38] <ggm> Ed
[17:53:40] <ripple> I *think* kurtis said that even if this I-D wasn't perfectly suited for this group, he didn't want to create another parallel non-IETF method of trying to get things like this published.
[17:53:54] <ggm> not about publish. we've reviewed. why come back here?
[17:54:14] <ggm> Kessins not rubber stamp. proper review. no rubber stamping here
[17:54:28] <ggm> Rob this has been reviewed here. has been changed. if we WGLC tomorrow, would it make people happy?
[17:54:33] <ggm> Olaf? with reviewers, yes [laughter]
[17:55:06] <ggm> Geoff draft will come back on monday if you want it now, www.potaroo.net/drafts its there.
[17:55:12] <ggm> with IETF boilerplate removed
[17:55:23] <ggm> Alain
[17:55:30] <ggm> quick Q. in production at RIR. right?
[17:55:44] <ggm> Geoff. not production. in installation. late test of test, early strages of production
[17:56:06] <ggm> issues can be taken on board, not looking at frozen production service
[17:56:11] <ggm> ggm yes 50-70
[17:56:15] --- jschmid has left
[17:56:16] <ggm> Alain then happy to take and review, if used
[17:56:29] <ggm> dnsop-dns-transport-issue
[17:56:41] <ogud> current version of Geoff's document http://www.potaroo.net/drafts/draft-huston-6to4-reverse-dns-04.html
[17:56:47] <ggm> Author. couldn't update. terminate ID, but transp considerations imprortant I think
[17:57:05] <ggm> Peter yes. withdraw
[17:57:24] <ggm> Potential New items. 7 docs to be considered. want to get feeling what room thinks.
[17:57:44] <ggm> MarkA full-service-resolvers
[17:59:09] <ggm> history reviewing overloading of 1918/as112 issues with roots/servers. costs real money to maintain
[18:03:58] <ggm> list of zones to cover.
[18:04:23] <ggm> rfc1918 felt to be contentious. one ip6.arpa already approved
[18:04:32] <ggm> Peter not discuss list of zones here. instead do on ML
[18:04:58] <ggm> Rob not proto change. just want to make recursive servers auth for zones which should not escape
[18:05:05] <ggm> Olaf. most interesting section is the iana section
[18:06:43] <ggm> unique assigned V6 left out for now. but could come in
[18:07:07] <ggm> lothberg. if answer instead of NXDOM. cacheing resolvers would stop making queries, would get dist sync
[18:07:24] <ggm> Mark. bill?
[18:07:36] <ggm> bill made servers send back 'interesting' answers. lasted less than 24h
[18:07:51] <ggm> Bill: I did that.
[18:10:03] <ggm> Alain: becomes blacklist.
[18:11:03] <suz> auth answer was something like "read-rfc-1918-dude", and the result was a lot of unresolved number-based node names in certain graphic network management applications all being collapsed to one node named "read-rfc-1918-dude". Fortune 55 users of said network management applications were unamused.
[18:11:58] <ggm> rob cheesy way to make every ns/resolver a stealth server for as112
[18:13:31] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection
[18:13:44] <ggm> sorry, lost the plot again.
[18:14:07] <ggm> peter checking reviewers of draft, move to ML
[18:14:15] --- frodek has left: Replaced by new connection
[18:14:35] <ggm> now on using-in-baliwick-ns
[18:14:38] --- ogud has joined
[18:15:15] <ggm> no author. move to ML
[18:15:21] <ggm> dnsop-dontpublish.
[18:15:29] <ggm> alain
[18:16:00] <ggm> minor changes to later version. want to take on work or not?
[18:16:18] <ggm> long effort, shed light on this, look at different angle. if take, will do complete rewrite.
[18:16:48] <ggm> 2 comments. one on split-brain DNS. meta comments
[18:17:13] --- frodek has joined
[18:17:15] <ggm> dns resolvers that receive things not published, what to do? points to previous discussion. need to take into account.,
[18:17:32] <ggm> pekka
[18:17:43] <ggm> suggest rewrite doc first, then will look at it again
[18:18:04] <ggm> alain only if of interest to community
[18:18:20] <ggm> peter who is target audience. marks is targetting s/w vendors. this aims at zone maintainer.
[18:18:26] <ggm> need to consider will reach them
[18:19:03] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection
[18:19:48] <ggm> alain may never reach consensus
[18:20:06] <ggm> peter. need problem statement
[18:20:47] <ggm> Mark: split brain dns exists. should document how to do it right
[18:22:02] <ggm> rob. problem is people putting unreachable stuff in DNS. has problems. should we fix this?
[18:22:27] <ggm> historically descended into arguments about reachability. no consensus. philosophy
[18:22:59] <ggm> rob think its simple problem. are there volunteers to get it out, avoid 4th iteration round?
[18:23:16] <ggm> liman,
[18:23:23] <ggm> either take work, define problem, state and try to solve
[18:23:24] <ggm> OR
[18:23:34] <ggm> declare lack of consensus, no single recom.
[18:23:36] <ggm> Ed
[18:24:06] <ggm> A is no no interest. so don't do. discussed many times, but no interest to close. so the will is missing
[18:24:21] <ggm> Rob thanks. Alain/Phil.
[18:24:26] <ggm> [is that a semi-formal drop? ]
[18:24:33] <ggm> Kurtis on tld-ops
[18:24:55] <ggm> missed deadline. apologies. will work on doc, discuss next time
[18:25:03] <ggm> anycast node requirement
[18:25:21] <ggm> no author, no proxy. so deal on ML during moratorium
[18:25:30] <ggm> split view. russ mundy to proxy for author
[18:25:32] <suresh> The latest split-view draft is not much different than the previous version; I've tried to reduce some of the older version's wordiness in the latest draft -- the appendix with the "example" scenario no longer exists.
[18:27:30] <ggm> Ed. reviewed history. no responses on ML to q. March 1st msg, from suresh. Ed/Suresh worked on it. but nothing.
[18:27:43] <ggm> have no problem with content.
[18:27:48] <ggm> but nobody stepped up to give input.
[18:27:55] <ggm> concerned that qualify as WG doc.
[18:28:04] <ggm> russ whats changed, now decided there are criteria.
[18:28:11] <ggm> russ go forward with it
[18:28:24] <ggm> peter reasonable for doc authors to actively barrack for readership
[18:28:52] <ggm> more than 5 put up hands to review, commit to discuss on ML
[18:29:44] <ggm> long-ttl
[18:29:53] <ggm> presentation in paris by lixia/group.
[18:30:17] <ggm> doc out. read and comment, will go through process and assess on ML
[18:30:56] <ggm> rob think about problems solved/not solved, and other techniques not mentioned. concerned how it interacts with dnssec. not thought about yet.
[18:31:08] <ggm> peter. tld ops, registrars welcome to review. recomm affects them
[18:31:39] --- ogud has joined
[18:32:48] <ggm> peter discussing WG charter/directions
[18:34:30] <ggm> new work::
[18:34:35] <ggm> Ed. the resolver needs a lot more attention
[18:34:43] <ggm> Measurement of DnsOps performance
[18:35:30] <ggm> AOB
[18:36:14] <ggm> Mark asking how to proceed with documents: hist and localzones
[18:36:30] <ggm> Rob: should .local issue be merged into marks draft?
[18:37:09] <ggm> Mark call in paris was drop. or split. willing to write other half.
[18:37:41] <ggm> Liman don't mix
[18:37:57] <ggm> Pekka .local should we be looking at LMNR, mDNS and that stuff?
[18:38:09] <ggm> Rob probably not. they are not DNS
[18:39:02] <ggm> Willi.
[18:39:14] <ggm> recently had ENUM draft, usage in ENUM env.
[18:39:19] <ggm> how to go forward with it
[18:39:29] <ggm> do in ENUM, or here?
[18:40:29] <ggm> I can't scribe for a bit. something has come up. sorry. -ggm
[18:41:17] <ripple> (timelate, from mp3) Patrik Falstrom at the mike.
[18:41:28] <suz> paf as enum co-chair: need more review of dns issues (NAPTR records) and bcp on running enum
[18:41:44] <suz> trying to avoid having multiple documents trying to be "best" cp
[18:43:37] <suz> let the record show Liman looming over the previous speaker at the mike....
[18:44:09] <suz> in favor of such a doc, allows that it's difficult, willing to try again: these are the considerations, tradeoffs, etc. rather than normative stance
[18:44:42] <suz> Olaf Kolkman: hearing both ops and implementation factors.
[18:44:48] --- FDupont has left: Disconnected
[18:44:53] <suz> SRA: agrees, and notes mixing of client and server issues also
[18:45:28] <suz> SRA: noting that these factors often mixed within current drafts
[18:45:31] --- cmurph has left: Disconnected
[18:45:50] <suz> SRA: reference doc series: server, client, etc.
[18:46:11] <suz> PAF: operational considerations on firewalls, config tradeoffs, et. al.
[18:46:37] <suz> Olaf, SRA: agreeing that omnibus docs are hard to write, get reviewed, get published
[18:48:03] <suz> in between the 400pg/generic doc, or enum-specific and too small?
[18:48:22] <suz> enum wants co-editor or lots of review from dnsop
[18:48:23] --- herve.prigent@jabber.org has joined
[18:48:41] <suz> weiler: short document with loits of musts and shoulds
[18:49:16] <suz> sra: how about finding another wg that also needs something like the big document postulated, and help by reviewing
[18:49:54] <suz> pk: keeping document around, bloating until it's too big and will take too long, does enum group a poor service
[18:50:14] <suz> suggests something specific to enum, like care & feeding of edns0
[18:50:48] <suz> olaf likes pk's suggestion, paf also likes sam's, and mark will review it all :)
[18:51:52] <suz> hankins: as112, phonecalls from confused people thinking they're under attack...nontrivial resource drain to handle it
[18:52:13] <suz> in support of the marka sinking-1918-local draft
[18:52:58] <suz> sra and otherwise noting that this level of cluelessness will not be fixed by an rfc people won't read
[18:53:21] <suz> AOB winding up....
[18:53:22] <suz> going
[18:53:24] <suz> going
[18:53:25] <suz> gone
[18:53:32] --- mstjohns has left: Disconnected
[18:53:38] <suz> call for bluesheets....meeting closed, bar open
[18:53:40] --- narten has left
[18:53:43] --- dblacka has left: Logged out
[18:53:44] --- suz has left
[18:53:46] --- suresh has left
[18:53:48] --- raj has left
[18:53:56] --- marka-isc has left
[18:54:06] --- ripple has left
[18:54:17] --- jaap has left
[18:54:32] --- suresh has joined
[18:54:46] --- suresh has left
[18:55:25] --- RussMundy has left: Logged out
[18:55:30] --- liman has left
[18:56:30] --- venaas has left: Logged out
[18:58:07] --- herve.prigent@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[18:58:48] --- ogud has left
[19:09:49] --- mstjohns has joined
[19:10:20] --- frodek has left: Disconnected
[19:10:51] --- rpayne has joined
[19:10:53] --- Olaf has left
[19:11:45] --- levigner has left: Disconnected
[19:11:54] --- lixia has left
[19:16:29] --- mo7sen has left: Disconnected
[19:20:11] --- rpayne has left
[19:27:14] --- levigner has joined
[19:27:51] --- levigner has left
[19:30:32] --- mstjohns has left
[19:41:58] --- mo7sen has joined
[19:43:41] --- mo7sen has left
[19:47:44] --- ogud has joined
[19:51:21] --- ggm has left
[19:52:35] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection