Subject: [dbound] No meeting planned for IETF 95

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:56:30 -0800

Colleagues,

We are more than half way through the window during which we can request
meeting time at IETF 95.  Pete and I have chatted, and given our remarks at
IETF 94 and the dearth of activity since about a week after that meeting,
we will likely not be making any such request.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but we would be happy to hear
counter-arguments or evidence of necessity before the window closes.

-MSK, DBOUND co-chair

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:18:48 -0500

> counter-arguments or evidence of necessity before the window closes.
I think it would be useful to identify where the working group is at the
moment.  I'll give my take.

Problem statement/milestones: At the WG meeting in Prague and in mailing
list conversations the problem was broken down into two major categories:
identifying (or repudiating) relationships between in-domain names and for
cross-domain names.  For current protocols (e.g., HTTP cookies, DMARC) the
in-domain relationship component is the most immediately relevant, as they
cross-domain relationships are out of scope.  The two problem aspects might
be solved by a single solution or by separate solutions.  It has been
expressed that a solution for both should not block the solution for one.

It would be useful for the WG to get some consensus on the above points.
Such can give way for the definition of milestones, and milestones can help
us on our goal of solving the problems at hand.

Solutions documents/reviews: There has been a lot of high-level discussion
both on the mailing list and in WG meetings about solution concepts.  While
that thinking is useful, I feel that that discussion has reached a point of
diminishing returns, and it is time to see the concepts materialize for
further development and feedback by the WG.  The concepts can provide more
utility when there is some substance to evaluate in light of them.  There
are three active solutions drafts at the moment, two of which (Levine and
Deccio drafts) specifically address the in-domain problem.  Very few
reviews of these documents have been made, and none have been adopted by
the working group.  I don't know whether the lack of formal problem
breakdown and milestone definition have hindered review and refinement of
the solutions drafts, if interest has waned, and/or there are other
impediments.

I would welcome meeting time at IETF 95, but I think we could only get
meaning out of it if we answer some of the questions above, and there is
some work done on the mailing list before then to provide a meaningful
content for that meeting.

Regards,
Casey

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:34:06 -0800

> us on our goal of solving the problems at hand.

Agreed, with the additional point that there was discussion in Yokohama
about further expanding the problem space topology to include a recognition
that "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches may need to be explored, or at
least discussed to cover the solution space.

> further development and feedback by the WG.
>

Also agreed.

> . . . the lack of formal problem breakdown and milestone definition [may]
> have hindered review and refinement of the solutions drafts. . .
>

I think that captures quite a bit of our stagnation.

> content for that meeting.

F2F at the IETF seems like overkill. I'd suggest that some phone
conferences might be a more effective mechanism to advance the discussions.
I'm willing to help facilitate such if the chairs and main contributors are
in agreement.

--Kurt Andersen

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jan 2016 02:48:34 -0000

If we're going to go back and revisit the question of what problem(s)
we're trying to solve, we can save time and shut down the WG, since
that's the place we've been spinning our wheels for years.  I don't
think that top-down vs. bottom-up in particular is a problem since my
proposal and I think Casey's can work either way.

At this point we have three proposals:

draft-deccio-dbound-organizational-domain-policy-01.txt
draft-levine-orgboundary-04.txt
draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution-02.txt

If people are still interested in this topic, it'd be a help if you'd
read the drafts, ask questions about stuff that is confusing, and
see if we can come up with a list of questions and comments that
distinguish them so we can perhaps see which one(s) address people's
problems best.  For example:

Is it OK that Deccio uses a new _odup top level domain?

Does Levine need to address some of the more complex cases that Deccio does?

Is it useful that Yao's design can refer queries to PSL like text files?

R's,
John

---

From: Casey Deccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:00:06 -0500

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:48 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> that's the place we've been spinning our wheels for years.

+1

This is precisely what I was referring to in my comment about conceptual
discussions having reached the point of diminishing returns.

> Is it OK that Deccio uses a new _odup top level domain?

(This will change in the -02 version of the draft.)

Casey

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:41:44 -0800

Speaking strictly as a participant:

> Is it useful that Yao's design can refer queries to PSL like text files?
A couple more I can think of off the top of my head:

Which ones look like they might start out addressing some of our overall
problem space, and then possibly extend to some of the rest?

Which ones lend themselves to quick implementation and experimentation?

-MSK