Subject: Working Group Process: Radio Silence

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:45:37 +0200

Dear Colleagues,

Except for the issue on which Peter, Roy, and Jakob work we want radio
silence until the DNSSECbis docs are out of the door. This is really
to improve the signal to noise ratio.

Please start _thinking_ about your requirements for confidentiality,
preventing zone enumeration and such. Don't start _voicing_ them
yet. Sit back and let the grey cells work.

We would like to see those requirements discussed and enumerated on
namedroppers in a few weeks (say beginning July) 

As for the more practical issues on NSEC2 or want to discuss
"half-baked" ideas please please go to the [email-masked]
list. (Which is referred to in our charter) We'll ask a volunteer
to summarize the discussions that took place on this list and will
take place on the cafax list once we have the requirements in
place. At that point we can bring the discussion back to namedroppers.

Once we have the requirement and we have a the summary of the
technical pitfalls we can see where we can match requirements and
solutions.

This is the point where we can have a useful face-2-face in San Diego
where we plan to have at least some 45 minutes allocated to this
discussion.

So concluding:
  In order to be more effective
	- Please hold back on "requirement discussions"
	- Please move _technical_ discussions on NSEC2 to [email-masked]
	- Please do pay attention to the "transition issue"

-- Olaf & Olafur
    DNSEXT WG chairs

--
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/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:46:21 +0200

Colleagues,

Somebody privately commented on our previous announcement:

> Hi.  I don't understand this.  Is the intention really that no
> discussion about WG document (e.g., DNSSECbis) is to occur on the WG
> list, except for the NSEC-alt issue (which should be taken to
> [email-masked])?  I have re-read your post several times, and I can't
> come to any other conclusion.

It is not our intention to move _all_ discussion away from namedroppers.

The "radio silence" message was only mend to apply to the discussions
on zone enumeration prevention, NSEC2 and related matters on which
hundreds of mails where posted over the last 2 weeks.

After receiving the message above I reread the original mail; Its
language was too restrictive.

So this is the deal.

  - Except for discussion of 
    http://www.rfc.se/~jakob/ietf/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-00.txt
    all discussion about the prevention of zone enumeration and NSEC2
    is deferred. 

    We'll open this topic of discussion once DNSSEC-bis is at the
    IESG. At that time we'll start with formulating the requirements.

    If you want to discuss possible solutions, baked and half-baked,
    please use [email-masked] (a majordomo list). At that point in
    time we'll look for volunteers to bring relevant summaries from
    that list to namedroppers.

  - There is _no_ radio-silence on other topics.  Your last minute
    nits on DNSSEC bis are welcome and feel free to discuss any other
    item that is within the scope of DNSEXT.

Sorry for possible confusion, please do not hesitate to ask questions
if this message did not clarify.

--Olaf 
  DNSEXT Co-Chair.