Subject: On Radio Silence, clarification.

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:13:12 +0200

Dear Colleagues,

First a commonplace.

  Mailinglists are difficult to manage, one can never tell if ones
  message came across just the way one intended. The lack of
  body-language and the fact that English is not everybodies first
  language does not really help in mailing list
  discussions. Apparently our messages are sometimes not clearly
  written and/or not clearly understood.

  If our 'process' messages confuse you, _please_ ask for clarification.

Now I will try to summarize how we try to manage this discussion.

  Our goal is 

  = to get DNSSEC-bis out of the door before the next cut-off with as
    little changes as possible

  = We do not want to close the door on future work that
    prevents zone enumeration.

  Our strategy is

  = not to solve the problem of prevention of zone enumeration now.

  = try to limit the discussion to what is relevant to confirm that
    DNSSEC-bis is ready.

Implementation

  Our intention with the radio-silence message was that we focused on
  getting DNSSEC-bis done and leave the work to prevent zone
  enumeration for later. There was a lot of detailed technical
  discussion on NSEC2, on the validity of the TLD arguments and on
  various little sidetracks that spawned from those discussions. We
  wanted to defer these discussion or move them to [email-masked] so
  that we could focus on the transition mechanism.

  To prevent long discussions on the various transitions we asked a set
  of volunteers to make an inventory of the possible ways forward. Here
  we also want to prevent long discussions on _what_ is the best way
  forward. We want to confirm that DNSSEC-bis can be shipped with no or
  very little modification.

  Here comes the tricky bit. Some of the transition mechanisms will
  only work if DNSSEC-bis contains specific language (e.g the thread
  started by Simon ond DNSKEY flag field). Discussion on that specific
  language is relevant to the current discussion if not having that
  language is prohibitive on going forward.

Way forward.

  = We allow for a few more days to see if we converge on the "DNSKEY flag
    field" discussion. 

  = We want to get working group consensus on shipping DNSSEC-bis.

  Please argue if you think that shipping would close the door on
  future work even though we have a list of transition mechanism to
  choose from. Please also provide support if you think that there are
  ways forward and DNSSEC-bis provides hooks to go forward.

  We do not have to choose our way forward now. We just want to make
  sure we can move forward.

Closing remark.

  We try not to confuse you, we realize we do, apologies therefore. 

  We really intend to get the discussion focused, hear everybody, and
  get to get our goals (see above) accomplished. 

--Olaf and Olafur
  engineers trying to do process management.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>