[07:51:55] --- ogud has joined
[08:04:52] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection
[09:45:27] --- ogud has joined
[09:47:54] --- ogud has left
[10:15:47] --- suresh has joined
[10:26:14] --- Antoin has joined
[11:30:12] --- frank has joined
[11:37:52] --- raj has joined
[11:38:01] --- RussMundy has joined
[11:57:58] --- RussMundy has left: Logged out
[12:19:45] --- frank has left
[12:19:55] --- frank has joined
[12:28:52] --- rstory has joined
[12:31:24] --- Jelte has joined
[12:31:36] <Jelte> hi
[12:32:48] <Jelte> anyone in the room yet?
[12:33:21] <frank> hi, so far nothing happened on the jabber side
[12:34:23] <Jelte> no i mean the physical room, i'm listening in, and i'd like to check the sound
[12:34:58] <raj> There's no sound in the room currently. I'm connected to chan. 5 and I hear nohting.
[12:35:12] <Jelte> getting the right volume to compromise between being able to understand what's being said and getting deaf from artifacts :)
[12:35:27] <Jelte> so far the sound at the other rooms has been very good
[12:35:31] <raj> (and I know my sound was working because a BOF just finished)
[12:35:52] <Jelte> but it has been pretty bad in the past
[12:36:13] <raj> sound was pretty good for the BOF which was just here.
[12:36:19] <Jelte> ah k
[12:39:24] --- keith_nm has joined
[12:40:03] --- rhe has joined
[12:40:50] --- shane has joined
[12:41:07] --- mtcarrasco has joined
[12:41:17] --- yone has joined
[12:41:42] --- tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo has joined
[12:42:12] --- jakob@kirei.se has joined
[12:42:40] --- ajsaf@jabber.org has joined
[12:43:51] --- ogud has joined
[12:44:17] <shane> Welcome all. My name is Shane and I will be your Jabber scribe today.
[12:44:24] <shane> ;)
[12:44:37] <Jelte> hi shane
[12:44:40] --- robert has joined
[12:44:51] <raj> Thanks shane!
[12:44:55] <Jelte> should there be sound yet? :)
[12:45:08] <shane> No, the chairs are still running around doing stuff...
[12:45:17] --- agallant has joined
[12:45:24] <Jelte> damn those cookies, they delay meetings
[12:46:02] <ogud> you are missing goooooood cookies :-)
[12:46:07] <Jelte> :(
[12:46:14] --- alexm has joined
[12:46:22] --- dcrocker has joined
[12:47:13] <robert> chairs talking now
[12:47:20] <alexm> on request of our humble chairs, i'll provide secondary jabber scribe services.
[12:47:30] <shane> Or primary!
[12:47:33] <Jelte> sound is good
[12:47:34] <shane> ;)
[12:47:44] --- marka has joined
[12:47:45] <alexm> Meeting is opened.
[12:48:06] <alexm> Peter bores with administrivia.
[12:48:16] <alexm> but mailing list has moved.
[12:48:41] --- joonhyung.lim has joined
[12:48:42] --- hotta has joined
[12:48:59] --- heland has joined
[12:49:14] <marka> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/
[12:49:14] --- robertl@apnic.net has joined
[12:49:25] --- geoff has joined
[12:49:31] --- mattlarson has joined
[12:49:36] --- fenton has joined
[12:49:37] --- Suzanne has joined
[12:49:52] <alexm> agenda: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/dnsop.txt
[12:50:00] <Suzanne> the brownies were stellar
[12:50:04] --- koji has joined
[12:50:29] --- m_ersue has joined
[12:50:34] <alexm> no immediate feedback on the agenda - accepted.
[12:50:43] --- cmurph has joined
[12:50:45] --- fujiwara has joined
[12:50:55] --- jaap has joined
[12:51:08] --- RussMundy has joined
[12:51:17] --- glozano has joined
[12:51:19] <alexm> document overview.
[12:51:29] <alexm> serverid goes to RFC ed queue.
[12:51:29] <shane> One document in RFC editor queue: draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid-08.txt
[12:51:37] --- iljitsch has joined
[12:51:48] --- roy has joined
[12:51:51] <Suzanne> my 10 years of anonymous participation in IETF is over
[12:52:15] <alexm> documents in/past WGLC.
[12:52:26] --- shinta has joined
[12:52:39] <alexm> 6to4-reverse-dns
[12:52:46] --- robach@jabber.org has joined
[12:52:48] <alexm> reflectors-are-evil
[12:52:52] <alexm> default-local-zones
[12:53:33] --- onakayu has joined
[12:53:59] <shane> reflectors-are-evil, default-local-zones, respsize, reverse-mapping-considerations, as112-ops, as112-under-attack-help-help-help
[12:54:03] <shane> Current drafts. :)
[12:54:11] <alexm> first: "Reflectors are evil".
[12:54:32] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-03.txt
[12:54:57] <shane> One slide, covers diffs between 02 and 03.
[12:55:01] <alexm> a few editorial changes.
[12:55:36] <shane> Pekka comments: language on recommendation uses SHOULD, which he is not sure is appropriate
[12:56:00] <shane> Fred replies: meant to put "SHOULD NOT"
[12:56:15] <shane> Pekka: I would prefer not to use uppercase when talking about operational guidance
[12:56:29] <Jelte> informational should never use SHOULD should it?
[12:56:34] <shane> Rob: this was supposed to be a fast track document!
[12:56:56] <shane> Rob: maybe we should leave this for the IESG, unless you feel this is a show stopper
[12:57:04] <shane> Pekka: it *will* come up later
[12:57:14] --- RussMundy has left
[12:57:30] <shane> Rob: is it going to be a show stopper for you or are you going to be able to let it go through?
[12:57:31] --- joshlitt has joined
[12:57:40] <alexm> Pekka will make a comment at IETF LC.
[12:57:50] <shane> Pekka: I will likely make a comment at IETF last call. Don't know whether it will be a comment or an objection.
[12:57:59] --- bhoeneis has joined
[12:58:19] <shane> Rob: once you've already done one review, it's kind of unfair to go through and find another batch. If it's a show-stopper that's one thing...
[12:58:28] <shane> Pekka: this issue is in the text that was added in the last revision
[12:58:51] <shane> Sam Weiler: one could infer that you don't want a review that is only halfway done. This would mean people would have to hold a review until it is done.
[12:59:13] <shane> Rob: What I said was if one has already done a review finding issues in a 2nd review is kind of unfair to the authors.
[12:59:17] <shane> Fred: thanks
[12:59:37] <alexm> will enjoy a NITS review, and then shipped to publication
[13:00:02] <shane> Mark reporting on the default-local-zones.
[13:00:16] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt
[13:00:47] <shane> Mark: Major comment was stressing which networks are likely to feel the impact of this in a negative way. Not trying to do addressing architecture, just point out where you will have problems. Hopefully text is clear enough now. If not, please send text!
[13:01:16] <alexm> Peter: doc has passed last call... so ..
[13:01:27] <shane> Peter: document has passed WGLC, so just sending text is not what is asked for. If there is a show stopper there, particularly with walled gardens, it should be clearly pointed out on the mailing list.
[13:01:28] --- marka has left
[13:02:14] <alexm> next: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.txt
[13:02:27] <alexm> Response Size document
[13:02:29] <shane> Peter: wanted to WGLC... editors resubmitted it.
[13:02:37] <shane> Peter: anyone read it?
[13:02:39] <shane> (one hand)
[13:02:50] --- marka has joined
[13:03:00] <shane> Joe Abley: any changes between 6 and 7?
[13:03:09] <shane> Peter: no substantive changes to text
[13:03:26] <shane> Editorial change, one bug fix in program...
[13:03:55] --- geoff has left
[13:04:01] <shane> Peter: will do WGLC, but want committed reviewers
[13:04:10] <shane> Peter: if we don't find 5 persons to review it...
[13:04:13] <Jelte> what is the intended status for this document?
[13:04:17] <shane> Peter: show of hands...
[13:04:32] <alexm> stephane, joe abley, fred
[13:04:41] <alexm> andrew sullivan
[13:04:43] <shane> Stephan, Joe Ably, Fred, Matt Larson, Andrew Sullivan, Bill Manning
[13:04:47] <alexm> bill manning
[13:05:14] <alexm> Next: Reverse Mapping
[13:05:29] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt
[13:05:31] <shane> (a hush falls across the room)
[13:06:18] --- gberezow@jabber.org has joined
[13:06:30] <alexm> Andrew Sullivan speaking.
[13:06:55] <alexm> talks about issues closed in -01
[13:07:14] <alexm> talks about issues _not_ closed and new ones in -01
[13:07:46] <mattlarson> You will never catch every one of them.
[13:08:17] <alexm> complaints received that -01 is ambigous.
[13:08:26] --- mikemlb has joined
[13:08:45] <alexm> talks about issues closed on -02
[13:09:05] --- msj has joined
[13:11:01] <alexm> a few changes to reduce ambgiouity
[13:11:23] --- geoff has joined
[13:11:28] <alexm> -03 can be expected, please raise issues now!
[13:11:33] <shane> Peter: show of hands who has read
[13:11:38] <shane> Peter: roughly 10 to 15
[13:11:53] <shane> Peter: who read this for the first time? one person only
[13:12:14] <shane> Peter: could that one person give impressions to author as feedback
[13:12:17] <alexm> requests feedback from "fresh" people.
[13:12:37] --- jasfo has joined
[13:13:15] <shane> Peter: other drafts with "dnsop" in name are not necessarily DNSOP working group items
[13:13:30] --- barbara.roseman@jabber.icann.org has joined
[13:14:05] <alexm> Stephane: there are two "customers": "consumers" and "producers" of reverse mapping.
[13:14:36] <shane> Stephane: Here is the real point about "reverse mapping is excellent; never use it". You have two sorts of actors, producers and consumers. It is not a contradiction to say "producers should produce reverse mapping, but consumers should be careful when using it."
[13:14:57] <alexm> Stephane prays "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
[13:16:13] <alexm> Next: AS 112 work basket
[13:16:24] <shane> Joe Abley speaking
[13:16:48] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-00.txt
[13:17:05] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-00.txt
[13:17:24] <alexm> loosey coordinated anycast deployment of authoritative servers.
[13:17:39] --- healthyao has joined
[13:18:51] <alexm> open questions: processes for adding, moving, changing zones.
[13:19:27] <alexm> Should AS 112 support IPv6?
[13:20:11] <shane> Meaning "Offer service on IPv6"
[13:20:48] <alexm> polish drafts, and then LC them?
[13:20:55] <alexm> intended status: Informational.
[13:21:15] <alexm> more docs needed to describe adding/dropping zones?
[13:21:42] <shane> Mark Andrews: you can incrementally deploy IPv6 because of the way anycast works
[13:22:12] <shane> Mark Andrews: but all nodes have to return the same data
[13:22:46] <shane> Rob: would use IANA registry for list of things being delegated, since it is most straightforward
[13:23:16] <shane> Rob: it can be "entertaining" if someone puts something that is supposed to be real
[13:23:28] <shane> Rob: but it's not like anyone can stop them if the operators decide to do that
[13:23:40] <shane> Joe: the question is: do we ever need to add new zones?
[13:24:10] <Jelte> if we decide we don't but later find we do, will this mean a flag-day?
[13:24:13] <shane> Ilijtsch van Beijnum: if operators configure servers that they shouldn't, that in itself isn't a problem
[13:24:30] <shane> Joe: at what point is it okay *at the parent zones* to put delegation in
[13:25:10] <shane> Bill Manning: what happens when we decide that, for example, 3FFE:: should be black-holed, is less interesting than what happens when we decide that should be put back into use?
[13:25:24] <shane> Joe: pulling a delegation is easy; remove from parent zone
[13:25:35] <shane> Bill: sez u!
[13:26:02] <Jelte> wouldn't there be a landslide of other problems if you'd pull 10/8 back?
[13:26:36] <fenton> There are sure a lot of ACLs that would need to change as well!
[13:26:48] <shane> Joe: if there is a requirement to delegate 10.in-addr.arpa to another server, then change it at the parents
[13:26:56] <Jelte> i certainly wouldn't want space in there
[13:27:22] <shane> Johan: I contest the assertion that it is easy to remove zones
[13:27:34] <fenton> Network 10 is a bad example, I'm sure there are better ones.
[13:27:36] <shane> Mark Andrews: might be nice to have another zone which contains list of zones that has to be served...
[13:27:47] <shane> ( for example)
[13:27:57] <shane> But that's not in the list... but it could be...
[13:27:58] <shane> Anyway.
[13:28:31] <shane> Peter: note that we are diving into solution space for add/drop zones, but... we are ahead of schedule...
[13:28:50] <shane> Bill Manning: anyone looked at getting resolver code updated?
[13:29:07] <shane> Joe: if we have absolute confidence that everyone will take Mark's advice we can shut down AS112!
[13:29:25] <shane> Mark: I don't expect stub resolvers will get updated.
[13:30:18] <shane> Andrew Sullivan: two things happened in conversation. 1) it would be really bad if some of these were answering for different sets of zones than others, 2) you should use the IANA registry for this
[13:30:21] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection
[13:30:41] --- ogud has joined
[13:30:47] <Jelte> the question is; how hard will it break exactly if they answer for different zones?
[13:33:39] <shane> Harvald: I don't get it.
[13:34:42] <shane> Harvald dismisses all problems raised.
[13:35:30] <shane> Mark: a lot of discussion is about synchronizing servers... same technology would apply here
[13:35:42] <shane> Harald: developing this technology for this experiment doesn't make sense
[13:35:49] <shane> Joe: I was talking about a 2-line script!
[13:36:16] <shane> Rob: not your ordinary cluster of servers... so who gets to direct what everybody should do... tend to leave it out of scope for this WG
[13:37:02] <shane> Mark: IANA should define who is on the list. Plus, there are ways to identify what operator is causing you pain if they are serving the zone.
[13:37:26] <shane> Joe: answers are: IPv6 support is good, automatic updates are a waste of time
[13:37:28] --- m_ersue has left
[13:37:32] <shane> Peter calls for a hum.
[13:37:52] <shane> IPv6 transport for existing zones. Hum!!!
[13:37:57] <Jelte> hum
[13:38:03] <shane> Loudish hum in favor. Silence opposed.
[13:38:11] --- mattlarson has left
[13:40:14] <shane> (discussion about whether to add a new document, and so on...)
[13:41:10] --- iljitsch has left
[13:41:20] <shane> Stephane: best to have a document about the current process!
[13:43:12] <Jelte> i'd like a master/slave like solution if possible (and not too difficult)
[13:43:27] --- Antoin has left: Replaced by new connection
[13:44:07] <shane> Bill: RFC1918 describes what should be in there. So there is a process about how to document.
[13:44:18] --- svnr2000 has joined
[13:44:31] <alexm> Bill: seperate process not needed.
[13:45:34] <shane> Joe: RFC3330 has some prefixes that might be used in future, so we can't use that
[13:46:13] <shane> Jim Reid: maintenance is not something this WG needs to care about; all that we should do in future is have AS112 leaders come to this WG
[13:46:40] <shane> Hum
[13:46:56] <shane> "Those who feel that we should have additional documents on how to add/drop zones from AS112 servers."
[13:47:06] <shane> Dim hum for, slightly less dim hum against.
[13:47:13] <alexm> most hummed that they were asleep.
[13:48:30] <shane> Peter: Does this document address these questions: "why do we need AS112 in the first place, why don't we just delegate to localhost or something like that?"
[13:49:32] <shane> Stephane: I don't think it should be addressed under the AS112 discussion.
[13:49:54] <shane> Q: how many haver read these?
[13:49:57] <shane> Many hands
[13:50:02] <shane> Q: how many support last call now
[13:50:08] <shane> Some hands
[13:50:15] <shane> Q: any who do *not* support it?
[13:50:21] <shane> Peter: no hands, like 10-15 for
[13:50:47] <shane> Peter: aiming at informational... but there is a subclass called FYI (or maybe this series is dead)
[13:51:13] <shane> Peter: maybe the help-help document should be one of these, since it is aimed at end users, so if possible we should go for FYI
[13:51:43] --- robertl@apnic.net has left
[13:52:25] <Jelte> haha
[13:52:32] <shane> Lucy Lynch from ISOC begs for people to be nominations...
[13:52:42] <shane> ICANN, GNSO, CCNSO, ALAC...
[13:52:54] <shane> Bill Manning also on the NOMCOM, so you can contact him.
[13:53:07] <alexm> Next: WG Charter & Milestones.
[13:53:22] <alexm> current: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html
[13:53:38] --- harald has joined
[13:55:12] <shane> Peter calls for volunteers to review AS112 documents.
[13:55:16] <shane> For WGLC.
[13:55:42] <shane> David Hankins, Geoff, Mark Andrews, Andrew Sullivan, Lucy Lynch
[13:55:51] <shane> (That was for FYI)
[13:55:56] --- joonhyung.lim has left
[13:55:59] <shane> (Now for guidelines)
[13:56:02] <alexm> Next: Operational Guidelines Docs
[13:56:25] <shane> Stephane, Matt Larson, Olafur, David Hankins, Geoff
[13:56:38] <shane> Of those, 2 are involved with AS112 systems
[13:57:17] <alexm> rechartering necessary to get the new stuff in.
[13:57:37] <alexm> AS 112, infrastructure TTL, performance measurements.
[13:57:49] <alexm> Next: "Other Drafts".
[13:58:15] <alexm> first: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt
[13:58:34] --- fujiwara has left
[13:59:05] <Jelte> i can't hear this
[13:59:09] <shane> Now?
[13:59:14] <Jelte> yes now it's fine
[14:02:31] <alexm> Stephane talks about use cases of control / provisioning /configu protocol.
[14:03:09] <shane> I think this sounds like work for a separate WG, really.
[14:03:34] <Jelte> an obvious question would be, is it even possible to capture different requirements into one complete set?
[14:03:34] <jakob@kirei.se> isn't this netconf?
[14:04:22] --- fneves has joined
[14:04:37] --- tariq has joined
[14:04:40] <shane> Peter: anyone want such a management protocol?
[14:04:45] <shane> Several nodes and so on.
[14:04:47] <shane> nods
[14:05:17] <shane> Joao: yes, and if we can interoperate between nameservers so much the better. It *will* happen, the question is whether it is interoperatable.
[14:05:32] <shane> Joe: I'm not convinced we need a protocol. We need an "arrangement".
[14:05:45] <shane> Mark: we definitely need a way to do this between vendors
[14:06:52] <shane> Olafur: see it as a really good thing, needs to be extensible, please go forward
[14:07:17] <jakob@kirei.se> that was Olaf Kolkman btw
[14:07:18] <shane> Olaf: a minimal set that can be extended is what we (NLnetlabs?) would want
[14:07:18] --- weshardaker has joined
[14:07:18] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[14:07:58] <shane> Peter: is this a server-server protocol? mgmt protocol? all of the above?
[14:07:59] --- barbara.roseman@jabber.icann.org has left
[14:08:20] <shane> Lars: my need is a management protocol
[14:08:30] <shane> (I think I have that last name wrong.) :(
[14:08:48] <jakob@kirei.se> (lars johan liman)
[14:08:53] <shane> Joe: important thing is representation of data, not the protocol
[14:09:08] <shane> Harald: object to the word "protocol", the right word should be "function"
[14:09:33] <shane> Harald: every time you say "protocol", people invent a new one
[14:09:54] <shane> Rob: was wondering whether or not it would be necessary to do a requirements document
[14:10:17] <Jelte> second that comment from rob
[14:10:54] <Jelte> also because i think there are conflicting requirements by the people who want this
[14:12:05] <shane> (discussion about what to do, focused work, and so on)
[14:14:08] --- Antoin has joined
[14:14:23] --- ogud has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:14:55] --- ogud has joined
[14:16:00] <shane> Peter: volunteers wanted to come up with a list of desired services/mechanisms/whatever
[14:16:52] <shane> Joao, Stephane, Lars, Joe Abley, Geoff Sisson, (someone from JP?)
[14:16:59] <yone> Kazunori Fujiwara
[14:17:03] <shane> Thanks!
[14:18:58] <shane> Discussion will occur online.
[14:19:08] <alexm> slides are online at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=68
[14:19:23] <alexm> Next: Trust Anchor Configuration and Maintainance
[14:19:49] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-larson-dnsop-trust-anchor-01.txt
[14:20:21] <alexm> Trust Anchor Options: DNSKEY
[14:20:23] --- weiler has joined
[14:20:23] <alexm> or DS
[14:20:37] <alexm> (matrix with comparison)
[14:22:33] <alexm> slide about TA maintainance
[14:22:47] <alexm> time mechanisms
[14:22:58] <alexm> Q: Adopt document?
[14:23:10] <alexm> Open issues:
[14:23:25] <alexm> more user friendly hash formats.
[14:23:32] <alexm> more ops recommendations
[14:23:41] <shane> Peter: how many have read?
[14:23:44] <shane> 10-15 hands
[14:23:57] <shane> Peter: how many think WG should adopt this?
[14:24:04] <shane> more than 5
[14:24:10] <shane> Peter: anyone opposed?
[14:24:14] <shane> no hands
[14:24:38] <shane> Will adopt as WG document, confirm on mailing list, and so on and so forth.
[14:25:13] <alexm> Next: DNS Resover Priming
[14:25:19] <alexm> and DNSSEC
[14:25:41] <alexm> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming-00.txt
[14:25:57] <alexm> old style priming: "hints" file.
[14:26:29] <alexm> priming has not been standardized.
[14:26:39] <alexm> or documented
[14:27:01] <Jelte> ..which will break because of firewalls and 512 byte limits
[14:28:14] <jakob@kirei.se> let them burn...
[14:28:24] <shane> Agreed.
[14:28:30] <shane> They'll fix the problem pretty quickly.
[14:29:22] <alexm> more issues when DNSSEC involved, and priming the root.
[14:29:32] <alexm> should also addresses be signed?
[14:29:46] <alexm> and try to walk trust chains down to nameserver addresses?
[14:30:09] <Jelte> will we be discussing the actual contents of the draft here now or are we first seeing whether to adopt this and should i wait with my comment to throw it to the mailing list?
[14:30:32] <shane> They are not totally unrelated, usually.
[14:30:34] <alexm> Providing the full chain will make it large.
[14:32:04] <alexm> Q: need to specify the priming process?
[14:32:41] --- msj has left
[14:32:45] <shane> Mark: technically one should not require that additional records be returned to (NSRRSET queries)
[14:32:50] <shane> Mark: working around an old BIND bug...
[14:33:12] <shane> Matt Larson: wholeheartedly support making this a WG documnet
[14:33:12] <Jelte> i'd like to see a specification
[14:33:52] <shane> Rob: people should understand the SBELT thing was well thought out, more than 20 years ago
[14:34:03] <shane> Rob: not sure we want to make priming a requirement
[14:34:19] <Jelte> SHOULD do priming?
[14:34:25] <shane> Pekka: specification as written results in an undefined scenerio if priming query fails
[14:34:45] <Jelte> hum in favour
[14:34:46] <shane> Rob: question for WG, we want to take on a document in this space?
[14:35:01] <shane> More than 5 report willing to help work on this
[14:35:07] <shane> Peter would like a co-editor
[14:35:15] <shane> Matt Larson first, but others possible
[14:35:20] <shane> Joe Abley too
[14:36:00] <alexm> Next: "_ registry"
[14:36:17] --- robach@jabber.org has left
[14:36:31] <alexm> Not much happened on that topic.
[14:37:12] --- liman has joined
[14:37:57] <shane> Jim Clenten: DKIM just passed IESG last review, one comment was should pursue registry for _domainkey tag.
[14:38:11] <shane> Jim: raised larger question about _ registry
[14:41:05] --- r.szabo has joined
[14:41:14] <shane> Peter: discuss on mailing list, do the usual thing
[14:41:36] <fenton> "Jim Clenten" -> "Jim Fenton"
[14:41:40] <shane> thx
[14:41:42] <shane> :-/
[14:41:45] <alexm> Next: TTL considerations for Infrastructure records
[14:43:23] --- dcrocker has left: Replaced by new connection
[14:44:37] --- r.szabo has left
[14:49:11] <shane> Peter: chairs have idea to formulate some work item around this research
[14:49:18] --- onakayu has left
[14:49:47] --- onakayu has joined
[14:49:54] <shane> Linman: investigated using sampled or generated queries?
[14:50:09] <shane> Lixia: collected real queries
[14:50:17] --- healthyao has left
[14:50:38] <shane> Linman: would like to see how many failed/succeeded
[14:50:39] --- fenton has left
[14:50:55] <shane> Lixia: filtered out the failed queries
[14:51:15] <shane> Peter: we are over time, anyone who wants to leave is given opportunity to leave
[14:51:20] --- mtcarrasco has left
[14:52:18] <shane> Status of cookies document?
[14:52:23] <shane> Olafur: thrown out
[14:52:45] --- yone has left
[14:52:47] <shane> Peter: please have look at DNAME document in dnsext
[14:52:54] --- yone has joined
[14:53:29] <shane> Peter: asked by v6ops to look at draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications
[14:53:31] --- robert has left
[14:53:50] <shane> Peter: also GeoPriv document seems like it might have DNS perspective
[14:54:04] <shane> AOB?
[14:54:10] <shane> Any
[14:54:11] <shane> Other
[14:54:11] <jakob@kirei.se> FOOOOOD
[14:54:12] <shane> Business?
[14:54:17] --- jakob@kirei.se has left
[14:54:19] --- harald has left
[14:54:19] <shane> And we're done.
[14:54:19] --- alexm has left
[14:54:20] --- geoff has left
[14:54:20] --- Antoin has left
[14:54:22] --- tariq has left
[14:54:22] --- gberezow@jabber.org has left
[14:54:22] --- weiler has left
[14:54:24] <Jelte> thanks chairs
[14:54:25] <Jelte> thanks scribes
[14:54:26] --- fneves has left
[14:54:26] --- ajsaf@jabber.org has left
[14:54:30] <Jelte> thanks microphones
[14:54:30] --- agallant has left
[14:54:34] --- mikemlb has left
[14:54:36] --- suresh has left
[14:54:38] --- yone has left
[14:54:39] --- frank has left
[14:54:42] --- liman has left
[14:54:42] --- rhe has left
[14:54:43] --- tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo has left
[14:54:45] --- onakayu has left
[14:54:46] <jaap> Thanks Jelte
[14:55:02] --- heland has left
[14:55:03] --- shinta has left
[14:55:07] <roy> thanks jaap
[14:55:09] --- shane has left
[14:55:10] <roy> :-)
[14:55:17] --- cmurph has left
[14:55:19] --- roy has left
[14:55:41] --- hotta has left
[14:55:49] --- jasfo has left
[14:55:52] --- jaap has left
[14:56:03] --- glozano has left
[14:56:46] <Jelte> :)
[14:56:56] --- Jelte has left
[14:58:08] --- keith_nm has left
[14:59:50] --- bhoeneis has left: dnsop@IETF-68@Praha
[14:59:58] --- koji has left
[15:01:01] --- Suzanne has left
[15:06:51] --- marka has left: Replaced by new connection
[15:06:52] --- marka has joined
[15:13:01] --- ogud has left
[15:17:50] --- raj has left
[15:23:51] --- joshlitt has left
[15:27:09] --- weshardaker has joined
[15:29:31] --- rstory has left: Logged out
[15:37:19] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[15:45:29] --- weshardaker has joined
[15:45:29] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[16:03:43] --- weshardaker has joined
[16:03:43] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[16:58:27] --- tariq has joined
[16:58:36] --- tariq has left
[17:15:20] --- harald has joined
[17:35:58] --- weshardaker has joined
[17:35:58] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[17:43:17] --- marka has left
[17:43:35] --- marka has joined
[17:45:47] --- weshardaker has joined
[17:45:47] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[17:49:08] --- svnr2000 has left
[17:57:35] --- weshardaker has joined
[17:57:35] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[18:32:19] --- weshardaker has joined
[18:32:19] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[18:34:47] --- Suzanne has joined
[18:34:48] --- Suzanne has left
[19:03:00] --- harald has left
[20:11:47] --- weshardaker has joined
[20:11:47] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[20:17:24] --- weshardaker has joined
[20:17:24] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[20:27:30] --- weshardaker has joined
[20:27:30] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[20:30:39] --- weshardaker has joined
[20:39:10] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[21:04:12] --- weshardaker has joined
[21:04:12] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[21:25:20] --- weshardaker has joined
[21:25:20] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[21:31:02] --- marka has left
[21:38:40] --- weshardaker has joined
[21:38:40] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[21:50:00] --- weshardaker has joined
[21:50:01] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[22:08:28] --- weshardaker has joined
[22:08:28] --- weshardaker has left: Lost connection
[22:40:31] --- MAP has joined
[22:40:37] --- MAP has left
[23:29:25] --- Thierry has joined