From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Apr 11 04:16:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58FE73A6B06; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.390, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYRBLbqw6UIO; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644413A6A7E; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:16:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFMtcU2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACmZXSkeQKZFoVhBJAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,338,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="241107889" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2011 07:16:36 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,338,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="637532205" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2011 07:16:34 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:16:32 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for the April 14, 2011 IESG Teleconference Thread-Index: Acv1cr6Sn08ya8eYTnilUDN3oEiwSgCxqfnQ From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , , , , Subject: [dns-dir] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for the April 14, 2011 IESG Teleconference X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:16:46 -0000 =20 Hi,=20 Please find below the preliminary agenda of the 4/14 IESG telechat. Please send me any questions, comments or concerns before 4/13 COB.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-raptorq-05 RaptorQ Forward Error Correction Scheme for Object Delivery (Proposed Standard) Note: Brian Adamson (adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil) is the document shepherd. Token: David Harrington o draft-ietf-ipfix-structured-data-05 Export of Structured Data in IPFIX (Proposed Standard) Note: Nevil Brownlee is the document shepherd Token: Dan Romascanu o draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-01 Port Mapping Between Unicast and Multicast RTP Sessions (Proposed Standard) Note: Roni Even (Even.roni@huawei.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Robert Sparks o draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-05 Sender RTT Estimate Option for DCCP (Proposed Standard) Note: Pasi Sarolahti (pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi) is the document shepherd. Token: Wesley Eddy 2.1.2 Returning Items NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Items o draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-18 The 'tn3270' URI Scheme (Proposed Standard) Token: Peter Saint-Andre 2.2.2 Returning Items NONE 2.2.3 For Action o draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-05 Proxy Mobile IPv6 Management Information Base (Proposed Standard) Note: Jonne Soininen (Jonne.Soininen@nsn.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Jari Arkko 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions 3.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-07 Overview of the Internet Multicast Addressing Architecture (Informational) Note: Lenny Giuliano (lenny@juniper.net) is the Document Shepherd Token: Ron Bonica o draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community-07 Requirements for Internet-Draft Tracking by the IETF Community in the Datatracker (Informational) Token: Russ Housley o draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-08 Requirements for a Working Group Charter Tool (Informational) Token: Russ Housley o draft-ietf-ledbat-survey-05 A Survey of Lower-than-Best-Effort Transport Protocols (Informational) Note: Rolf Winter (rolf.winter@neclab.eu) is the Document Shepherd. Token: Wesley Eddy 3.1.2 Returning Items NONE 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD 3.2.1 New Items o draft-cardona-cablelabs-urn-07 A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for CableLabs (Informational) Token: Peter Saint-Andre o draft-kanno-tls-camellia-01 Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS) (Informational) Note: Satoru Kanno (kanno.satoru@po.ntts.co.jp) is the document shepherd. Token: Sean Turner o draft-housley-rfc5008bis-00 Suite B in Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) (Informational) Note: Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Sean Turner 3.2.2 Returning Items NONE 3.3 IRTF and Independent Submission Stream Documents 3.3.1 New Items NONE 3.3.2 Returning Items NONE 3.3.3 For Action o draft-frejborg-hipv4-13 Hierarchical IPv4 Framework (Experimental) Note: IRSG submission. Tony Li (tony.li@tony.li) is the document shepherd. Token: Russ Housley o draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-10 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) with Graceful Restart (Historic) Note: ISE submission. Token: Russ Housley 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review o Real Time Communication on the World Wide Web (rtcweb) Token: Gonzalo o Protocol to Access WS database (paws) Token: Dan 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under Evaluation for IETF Review NONE 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval o Softwires (softwire) Token: Ralph o Secure Inter-Domain Routing (sidr) Token: Stewart From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 12:26:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA09E074B for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:26:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lpeFulxlx6C for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D19EE06F4 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so972663vxg.31 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:26:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=zW3KKrsLjPMoXr8BZ0ULWOUdPjIGG7IYXqzc+ZbE0bo=; b=LppLWg9kJqTzAheXs9B2U3XZqznSefzNxHx7HjOLR0GwxJKOCxTuRkockE/sMgmQjZ oBDBKPiHOdt6Hl+M/wu3+sYYJjcwz+URfOgwlA9Tw7OoYrv1d9Fvi1ijg3t8ZuIyvZ9H 5a5WT1gFLNAa8bhr+OApmqA/VdmV7Pu9GyznQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=Usbs4Hu6/K4wunnUrWH0WVL4eK5LluKavp+SBUFUQzEdeK2y/GZEBMFyley/4YGTX1 XMXzUsTiszsg8JIynN8vCDAFRqh+ZJvpI2HEYpJuuwV9wwnWadpi3z7vnB1Lkvo8dZai ab1cuT3GEplinKIMz7F2yza/eYLX3XtXdjrVY= Received: by 10.220.192.69 with SMTP id dp5mr2141858vcb.187.1303327594625; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [161.44.65.177] ([161.44.65.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v16sm228883vcr.37.2011.04.20.12.26.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:26:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Droms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:26:31 -0400 Message-Id: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> To: IETF DNS Directorate Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:26:38 -0000 Robert Sparks asked me if the IANA registry at = http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters should be updated to = reflect the contents of RFC2181. For example, should the registry entry = for PTR records include a reference to RFC2181 as well as RFC1034: PTR 12 a domain name pointer [RFC1035] I'd like to get a review of RFC2181 and any recommendations for edits to = the IANA registry. Can I get a volunteer? Thanks... - Ralph From ajs@shinkuro.com Wed Apr 20 12:42:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA41E073B for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.615 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ipQo-qjnYfrw for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEF0E06A4 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BC3B1ECB408; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:42:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:42:29 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Ralph Droms Message-ID: <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:42:33 -0000 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:26:31PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > Robert Sparks asked me if the IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters should be updated to reflect the contents of RFC2181. For example, should the registry entry for PTR records include a reference to RFC2181 as well as RFC1034: > > PTR 12 a domain name pointer [RFC1035] Why? I didn't do a review just now, only a quick scan, but I don't see anything in 2181 that is altering the values in the registry. Was there something specific Robert had in mind? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 12:51:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB504E073B for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sgUSoCEDmbd3 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287C3E0669 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so633165qyk.10 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=GlsaLsucqU3SjK/bAGrf55M3dSpiJswQJotMpCDAIrw=; b=ww167uKo1bAK5vnUyKDDhEtSBKJSuo34PWifnfxrTDjKwNTrQ5je5FNm0e3SCXYmwx IM5fmn7r4zKypXxhj72sTH1sRQsXQ5GISNqEoTw4liLI++fy1tndhpvew/rG1fcZFH1Q yMpScIjnS3uukiCuO6wQYaIRWALZQfrBTlXRI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=va9dzIkBoY/zmEOYIdaidFqEpgyUCBWX5qf4/3W7zJpxTHA6eOnEJgU89DGfrGjjki pcz5aTjikFqVk8EKgprT0u5gey9I10RRw11/Rvi8HqmsG/WrTjWsD7hZtCy3vwAfMONh dBkiQnE8awppUlv7mpO7p5yiiOQgCUAWmesmY= Received: by 10.229.37.82 with SMTP id w18mr5651577qcd.223.1303329066782; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [161.44.65.177] ([161.44.65.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m15sm869583qck.21.2011.04.20.12.51.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:51:03 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:51:08 -0000 On Apr 20, 2011, at 3:42 PM 4/20/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:26:31PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: >> Robert Sparks asked me if the IANA registry at = http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters should be updated to = reflect the contents of RFC2181. For example, should the registry entry = for PTR records include a reference to RFC2181 as well as RFC1034: >>=20 >> PTR 12 a domain name pointer [RFC1035] >=20 > Why? I didn't do a review just now, only a quick scan, but I don't > see anything in 2181 that is altering the values in the registry. Was > there something specific Robert had in mind? For example, should the PTR registry entry read: PTR 12 a domain name pointer = [RFC1035][RFC2181] "No change required" is a perfectly fine answer. - Ralph From ajs@shinkuro.com Wed Apr 20 12:55:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26510E06A4 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:55:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.614 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GiWb+jAwWtsa for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2061E0669 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25DCD1ECB408; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:55:40 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Ralph Droms Message-ID: <20110420195540.GN5201@crankycanuck.ca> References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:55:43 -0000 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:51:03PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > For example, should the PTR registry entry read: > > PTR 12 a domain name pointer [RFC1035][RFC2181] > > "No change required" is a perfectly fine answer. Ok, if that's the only question, then I think "no". 2181 didn't change any of the entries nor even any of the meaning; it was just an attempt to clarify some details (one might say, "Stomp out misconceptions," I guess). So I think it shouldn't be altered. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 13:47:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8B0E078F for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.279 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MeSGYY9hwu5n for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BF5E0783 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so712383qwc.31 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:47:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=NwgPYpDV+b3R7fKvAWFI/t82CmvoNgROtukLiOtfLeE=; b=rLNPF7ZovmeKkyPYGLHqCrDhtbkkuS0IISUaYAozIRXCVr+xZNNdfRFC4MsyfmxjTt PJaLIsvtu3xPcNPdRgnApWkZT6xsEdnEdLK7mDwSWEOJNRMHH2pmpAS/+AUB20L02YH2 gc3MoCXdUVg+Kxfmbsn/wkqpk4wPEQF52hU2A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=N0enMEpoduTuE1wKG6hqSATXFSVWUn0UA8LdHQreJmeAQBxsi3Jl3CmLd+3t5/D1FB RjqjnlTNVKbzp5zxXQ1DZe7jGAjCf/T19XTL6MKUhXZe6lDm0YSXY2jl1nzjYS53hbKE PuE+44p+IaD/d3vI/8+gE3YvCFipofncahDYI= Received: by 10.224.182.71 with SMTP id cb7mr5645299qab.271.1303332446974; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [161.44.65.177] ([161.44.65.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c27sm886439qck.46.2011.04.20.13.47.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <20110420195540.GN5201@crankycanuck.ca> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:47:24 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> <20110420195540.GN5201@crankycanuck.ca> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:47:27 -0000 On Apr 20, 2011, at 3:55 PM 4/20/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:51:03PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: >> For example, should the PTR registry entry read: >>=20 >> PTR 12 a domain name pointer = [RFC1035][RFC2181] >>=20 >> "No change required" is a perfectly fine answer. >=20 > Ok, if that's the only question, then I think "no". 2181 didn't > change any of the entries nor even any of the meaning; it was just an > attempt to clarify some details (one might say, "Stomp out > misconceptions," I guess). >=20 > So I think it shouldn't be altered. That was Robert's example. Just checking, because I think you've = already said "no": Is there anything else specified in RFC2181 that = might call for an update to the registry? - Ralph From ogud@ogud.com Wed Apr 20 14:03:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FFBE06C4 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id di+TkHhrQQ8k for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5FCE0669 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3KL41Sg004886 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:04:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ogud@ogud.com) Message-ID: <4DAF4A29.7070409@ogud.com> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:03:37 -0400 From: Olafur Gudmundsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dns-dir@ietf.org References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> <20110420195540.GN5201@crankycanuck.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.20.30.4 Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:03:41 -0000 On 20/04/2011 4:47 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 3:55 PM 4/20/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:51:03PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: >>> For example, should the PTR registry entry read: >>> >>> PTR 12 a domain name pointer [RFC1035][RFC2181] >>> >>> "No change required" is a perfectly fine answer. >> >> Ok, if that's the only question, then I think "no". 2181 didn't >> change any of the entries nor even any of the meaning; it was just an >> attempt to clarify some details (one might say, "Stomp out >> misconceptions," I guess). >> >> So I think it shouldn't be altered. > > That was Robert's example. Just checking, because I think you've already said "no": Is there anything else specified in RFC2181 that might call for an update to the registry? > RFC2181 is a clarification of a "misconception" that we can not trace down to any document just practice. There is no reason to update the registry as anyone looking at the documents today will not make the same misconsception in particular if they read RFC3597. Olafur From peter@denic.de Wed Apr 20 14:48:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754ADE0738 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:48:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.013 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qr9CyonyweMH for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C857DE0751 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1QCfFp-0004nc-1B; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:48:09 +0200 Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local id 1QCfFo-0002x5-U5; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:48:08 +0200 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:48:08 +0200 From: Peter Koch To: Ralph Droms Message-ID: <20110420214808.GO4088@x27.adm.denic.de> Mail-Followup-To: Ralph Droms , Andrew Sullivan , int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> <20110420195540.GN5201@crankycanuck.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: Peter Koch Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:48:13 -0000 On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:47:24PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > > So I think it shouldn't be altered. > > That was Robert's example. Just checking, because I think you've already said "no": Is there anything else specified in RFC2181 that might call for an update to the registry? I'd still like to understand the background o the question. I'm with Andrew here. RFC1035 specifies the RDATA format for PTR, other ocuments, including 2181, may clarify protocol or operational aspects. Now, if the registry's task is to point to a specification - and I think it is - then a reference to 1035 is fine. Should you expect a full list of documents to understand PTR, you'd need to have a longer list. But this isn't what the registry reference is for. This is kind of similar to keeping the applicability status (recommended, deprecated, ..) inthe IANA registry: good idea, but wrong place. -Peter From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 07:16:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF7AE00BE for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DpwqvUnd0Qpa for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C0EE078B for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so1661847vws.31 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:16:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=3MmjYwO9U+0MhscNiiqXI+yZU4d3ozWbQ2Ld8H8JpUY=; b=X5uRixaBQX4hLQkGlnZ1hckhKGi6Ma3yMGP7pZ6PgZO5rRxhUokDsIkXNVtXyaoGTR BLEwjcF5WAzQMxI3/RfLaHUBEKwkx361/wuI7r2S+GqW6V/a9QrDT9rlL/TjdWJDCZ38 vlADHR1SqqC3AkUIu+LskIxkzpV30uYResVt4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=TZwr/sOxkqkDtzDDm/gD1lbgIunVDUhXL/yG6KxfS3Xi5ORUk56YMcSC+PrKCV8U+k ayOIfio7o2qi7w6U1lfXJlkz9a3Nl6B2rsXCHiF1tUsty4nBuwrT0CX+7Q5TGwjBwS4P uGEQJ2xgSCDofALvgYxxqNah3DB80eE28zxQU= Received: by 10.52.76.166 with SMTP id l6mr26418vdw.102.1303395373118; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [161.44.65.177] ([161.44.65.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id em10sm1011061vbb.15.2011.04.21.07.16.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <20110420214808.GO4088@x27.adm.denic.de> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:16:10 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3036A25D-D8B8-4D80-B7F6-19091915D901@gmail.com> <20110420194229.GM5201@crankycanuck.ca> <59B88E8E-842D-49F5-B833-9D2254DB4EF7@gmail.com> <20110420195540.GN5201@crankycanuck.ca> <20110420214808.GO4088@x27.adm.denic.de> To: Peter Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate Subject: Re: [dns-dir] Request to review RFC2181 and IANA registry X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:16:14 -0000 The question came from another AD who had a note to himself to check on = the registry to determine if any updates were required based on RC 2181. What I'm hearing is "no": the registry includes references to defining = RFCs, not a list of all RFCs required to understand and use PTR = correctly. Thanks - if I've got the summary correct, it's the answer I need. - Ralph On Apr 20, 2011, at 5:48 PM 4/20/11, Peter Koch wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:47:24PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: >=20 >>> So I think it shouldn't be altered. >>=20 >> That was Robert's example. Just checking, because I think you've = already said "no": Is there anything else specified in RFC2181 that = might call for an update to the registry? >=20 > I'd still like to understand the background o the question. > I'm with Andrew here. RFC1035 specifies the RDATA format for PTR, = other > ocuments, including 2181, may clarify protocol or operational aspects. > Now, if the registry's task is to point to a specification - and I = think > it is - then a reference to 1035 is fine. Should you expect a full = list > of documents to understand PTR, you'd need to have a longer list. > But this isn't what the registry reference is for. This is kind of = similar > to keeping the applicability status (recommended, deprecated, ..) = inthe IANA > registry: good idea, but wrong place. >=20 > -Peter From dromasca@avaya.com Fri Apr 22 00:13:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC73E0826; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:13:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.057 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aurb2Q3eSuVt; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F747E07FD; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:13:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFMtcU3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACmZXSkeQKZFoVhBJAMgwA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,253,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="276083978" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2011 03:13:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,253,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="611835785" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2011 03:13:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:13:41 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for the April 28, 2011 IESG Teleconference Thread-Index: AcwAcpVAnQf8iea5T4ewnWO3HiM5KgASeQUQ From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , , , , Subject: [dns-dir] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for the April 28, 2011 IESG Teleconference X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:13:48 -0000 =20 Hi,=20 Please find below the preliminary agenda of the 4/28 IESG telechat. Please let me know before 4/27 COB if there are any questions, issues or concerns related to the documents and WG charters brought up for the IESG approval. Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 -----Original Message----- From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of IESG Secretary 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-17 Best Current Practice for Communications Services in support of Emergency Calling (BCP) Note: Marc Linsner (mlinsner@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Robert Sparks o draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07 Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion (Proposed Standard) Note: Dave Ward (dward@juniper.net) is the document shepherd. Token: Jari Arkko o draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-15 Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel Traffic over MPLS Networks (Proposed Standard) Note: Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Stewart Bryant o draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-10 Manifests for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (Proposed Standard) Note: Sandra Murphy (sandra.murphy@sparta.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Stewart Bryant o draft-ietf-netext-redirect-07 Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 (Proposed Standard) Note: Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Jari Arkko o draft-paxson-tcpm-rfc2988bis-02 Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer (Proposed Standard) Note: Wesley Eddy (Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov) is the document shepherd. Token: Wesley Eddy o draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsecha-protocol-05 Protocol Support for High Availability of IKEv2/IPsec (Proposed Standard) Note: Yaron Sheffer (yaronf.ietf@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Sean Turner o draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as-00 Unique Per-Node Origin ASNs for Globally Anycasted Services (BCP) Note: Peter Schoenmaker (pds@lugs.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica o draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15 Locally-served DNS Zones (BCP) Note: Peter Koch (pk@ISOC.DE) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica o draft-ietf-trill-adj-06 RBridges: Adjacency (Proposed Standard) Note: Erik Nordmark (nordmark@acm.org) is the document shepherd. Token: Ralph Droms 2.1.2 Returning Items o draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09 "Guidelines for the use of the OAM acronym in the IETF" (BCP) Note: Chris Liljenstolpe (ietf@cdl.asgaard.org) is the document shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-16 Pseudowire (PW) OAM Message Mapping (Proposed Standard) Note: Andrew Malis, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com is the document shepherd. Token: Stewart Bryant Was deferred by Tim Polk on 2011-01-06 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Items NONE 2.2.2 Returning Items NONE 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions 3.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-enum-iax-10 IANA Registration for Enumservice 'iax' (Informational) Note: Bernie Hoeneisen (bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch) is the document shepherd. Token: Gonzalo Camarillo o draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-09 Current Practices for Multiple Interface Hosts (Informational) Note: Hui Deng (denghui02@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Jari Arkko o draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10 Validation of Route Origination using the Resource Certificate PKI and ROAs (Informational) Note: Sandra Murphy (sandra.murphy@sparta.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 IPv6 AAAA DNS Whitelisting Implications (Informational) Note: Joel Jaeggli (joelja@bogus.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica o draft-ietf-kitten-digest-to-historic-03 Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic (Informational) Note: Tom Yu (tlyu@mit.edu) is the document shepherd. Token: Stephen Farrell o draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-05 I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG! (Informational) Note: Peter Koch (pk@DENIC.DE) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica o draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-06 AS112 Nameserver Operations (Informational) Note: Peter Koch (pk@DENIC.DE) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica 3.1.2 Returning Items o draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-12 Framework for Emergency Calling using Internet Multimedia (Informational) Note: IETF LC ends Mar 10.Marc Linsner (mlinsner@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Robert Sparks 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD 3.2.1 New Items o draft-ietf-sipping-sip-offeranswer-14 SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Usage of the Offer/Answer Model (Informational) Token: Robert Sparks o draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-15 Best Current Practices for NAT Traversal for Client-Server SIP (Informational) Note: Mary Barnes is the document shepherd Token: Robert Sparks 3.2.2 Returning Items NONE 3.3 IRTF and Independent Submission Stream Documents 3.3.1 New Items NONE 3.3.2 Returning Items NONE 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review NONE 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval o Real Time Communication on the World Wide Web (rtcweb) Token: Gonzalo o Protocol to Access WS database (paws) Token: Dan 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under Evaluation for IETF Review NONE 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval o Softwires (softwire) Token: Ralph From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 14:38:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DADE0780 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:38:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.662 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QuSCWOUlN5+C for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33F3E074E for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so942667vxg.31 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=elOkEdtwgpw8EAXmTQV0gc4/Afg5LKvHGn501pdpc0M=; b=p+jP9fMAjCvHzvOgAjYUpusz8c8ksS+Xc6eFpY9WixgZESzLnkA4ymI9IGvFqAij3a PzHvTcq4rSIXvd/udNMFDMXpEomZzpz1mlUr+NT9CgmOZ1pS8DRyqu9Y3l4fW6Cx6gJz HHA3M9ffAZhHVVojyx4ys/7EXaXF1sTu1myqE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=EL5hGFSOckOdue5yRCWIUxVAr2ed6f2G3+4xZkEHMXwxVO0EjQRdIkihDKBWPETzc9 QnT+v2z2+Gsq0poHlgotUJqB2Q3zSv2kySQdz0Dfj9XxgqxRKsDfYcYH5ZF29AsDKdgz W++eW7+RuzhmUMdfMmqTN2/0p/1DYo9nlVUgg= Received: by 10.52.76.193 with SMTP id m1mr1874775vdw.204.1303853932434; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bxb-rdroms-87110.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b24sm72695vby.7.2011.04.26.14.38.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Ralph Droms Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:38:49 -0400 Message-Id: <45719338-C05C-432C-876D-7004032D0618@gmail.com> To: IETF Directorate DNS Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, ops-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: [dns-dir] draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:38:56 -0000 Has anyone from the DNS Directorate reviewed = draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03, which is on the = agenda for this week's telechat? - Ralph From ajs@shinkuro.com Wed Apr 27 04:29:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FBAE071F for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:29:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.654 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2tVUouC7Rg5 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E018E06C2 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CD8C1ECB41D; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:29:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:29:42 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: Ralph Droms Message-ID: <20110427112942.GC7329@crankycanuck.ca> References: <45719338-C05C-432C-876D-7004032D0618@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45719338-C05C-432C-876D-7004032D0618@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, ops-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF Directorate DNS Subject: Re: [dns-dir] draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:29:45 -0000 On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: > Has anyone from the DNS Directorate reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03, which is on the agenda for this week's telechat? > I had not, but I read it quickly just now and I have no objection. (I do think it could use a pass with an aggressive red pen -- there are parts of the text that could be much simpler in plainer language -- but I suspect the draft is trying to be diplomatic.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Apr 27 04:52:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dns-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E264AE0727 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rur8VvByYKuk for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C92E0721 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so791259pwi.31 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:52:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=/pIBhokV1bWC476czWxwesCEaGgaR8nhXaWNj25VWl0=; b=G0FI849fYwmOPLPXFoRzB2UNwtPnf1LKA0TvsmX6B21wBUgcAeXwl5+kmkpognWwPc 8brhG3SD6m0VViW/QwaPD2MaocWqmAPehF0pvLrLaXHSU9PAUdGq52czYlnGs5LUhZO0 QYKYn7CacO/j0XQT2W69fEjGWUdCDoJxQd95o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=Esm61w5UdJ0k4L0lmEfD6YNK1pwIkvlfStw0UcjPh10kY8Y76AmvyW/PeWp1TjktBU h/3G/hOZRBcQ9QJJPLsVx6ICEdv9e0NFsZ9kYkE+dy9rS2vw10qm74DdFQ71/WKielqe e3Ij51VGGHvzqAfyRN+cL1f1kr2NUsmrHMml0= Received: by 10.68.14.69 with SMTP id n5mr2099132pbc.315.1303905138811; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc-vpnasa-526.cisco.com (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q5sm522146pbs.11.2011.04.27.04.52.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <20110427112942.GC7329@crankycanuck.ca> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:52:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <79059A13-2620-4274-A82B-712997DDE218@gmail.com> References: <45719338-C05C-432C-876D-7004032D0618@gmail.com> <20110427112942.GC7329@crankycanuck.ca> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: int-ads@tools.ietf.org, ops-ads@tools.ietf.org, IETF Directorate DNS Subject: Re: [dns-dir] draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03 X-BeenThere: dns-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNS directorate discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:52:20 -0000 OK, thanks, Andrew. - Ralph On Apr 27, 2011, at 7:29 AM 4/27/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote: >> Has anyone from the DNS Directorate reviewed = draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-03, which is on the = agenda for this week's telechat? >>=20 >=20 > I had not, but I read it quickly just now and I have no objection. (I > do think it could use a pass with an aggressive red pen -- there are > parts of the text that could be much simpler in plainer language -- > but I suspect the draft is trying to be diplomatic.) >=20 > A >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@shinkuro.com > Shinkuro, Inc.