Subject: [dns-dir] Draft Minutes of 2nd Meeting (Thursday) at IETF72

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:08:06 +0200

Dear All,

with apologies for the delay, here is a draft version of our second
DNS directorate meeting over Thursday's dinner at IETF72.  Please let
me know of any omissions or inaccuracies in this or the Tuesday
meeting minutes.

-Peter
_______________________________________________
dns-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-dir

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:16:00 -0400

Some quick comments.

>    o IANA accused of "bypassing" the IETF in setting up the TLD TAR     [Peter]

> [Skipped]

What is this? Does this refer to the Interim Trust Anchor Repository?
If so, IANA did indeed coordinate with the IETF, though unofficially
(i.e., there was no formal IAB statement). But Russ and Olaf were made
aware of this (as were others) and AFAICT, there was universal support
for going forward with the ITAR. (Basically, whatever concerns people
had, the alternatives of IANA not creating this were worse, i.e., RIPE
would have felt compelled to create the registry, which they didn't
want to to do.)

>    o Returning Patterns of suboptimal/concerning use of the DNS

> [Skipped]

I'm curious as to what this is...

>    o DNS and Cookie Spec Issues

> [Skipped]

Ditto.

>    o DNS related language and terminology in RFCs

> [Skipped]

??

>    o Weight of DNS considerations in IESG review

> [Skipped]

??

>    o Fast Flux Draft                                            [Roy, Peter]
>      <draft-bambenek-doubleflux-01.txt>
>      Submitted to RFC Editor on Independent Submission Stream

> 	This draft was briefly discussed on the directorate mailing list;
> 	it raised some operational concerns and can be read to redefine
> 	protocol semantics, thus competing with the DNSEXT WG.

>      [Action]: Roy to take this to the Author, the RFC Editor, the 4 ADs,
> 	 and the DNS directorate

I've also pinged Steve Crocker (SSAC) about whether they have looked
at this. SSAC has studied the FF issue a bit and would be ICANN's
focal point for clue about FF.

>    o SRV port name/number registry at IANA
>      <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-00.txt>
>      <draft-jennings-http-srv-00.txt>

> 	Several drafts, including those mentioned above, propose work
> 	and procedural changes in the area of port numbers and port
> 	identifier assignment, including use of identifiers in the
> 	"Service" part of the SRV owner name.  Dave Crocker has also
> 	been working in that area, proposing an "underscore label
> 	registry".
> 	The directorate discussed whether this was a DNS issue at all or
> 	something merely happening in APPS, because it was _use_ of an
> 	already existing RR type.  There was rough consensus that DNS
> 	clue needed to be injected, especially when "underscore labels"
> 	would be declared special and/or the applicability statement
> 	of RFC 2782 (SRV RR) was modified or generalized.

>       [Action]: {note is incomplete, but lists Olafur -- apologies}

I believe that tsvwg-iana-ports is not trying to get into the SRV
discussion. That document has enough stuff in it without tackling
SRV. But, again, it is understood that an SRV registry is needed and
someone needs to write a document. It would be good to (finally) make
that happen.

>    o The Myth of 13 Root Name Servers

> [Skipped]

Is there a document that addresses this? From an ICANN perspective, a
document is clearly needed that explains the 13 limit, and discusses
the real issues.  I have seen confusion even among  the DNS clueful
about what the real  limits/restrictions are.

Thomas