Subject: [dnsext] WG Review: Recharter of DNS Extensions (dnsext)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT)

A modified charter has been submitted for the DNS Extensions (dnsext)
working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The IESG has not made any
determination as yet.  The modified charter is provided below for
informational purposes only.  Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list ([email-masked]) by Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

DNS Extensions Working group (dnsext)
----------------------------------------

Last Modified: 2009-06-24

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]> 

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
Archive: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/

Description of Working Group:

The DNS has a large installed base and repertoire of protocol
specifications. The DNSEXT WG group will actively advance DNS
protocol-related RFCs on the standards track while thoroughly
reviewing further proposed extensions. The scope of the DNSEXT WG is
confined to the DNS protocol, particularly changes that affect DNS
protocols "on the wire" or the internal processing of DNS data. DNS
operations are out of scope for the WG.

The WG will limit itself to review of proposals for new extensions
and clarification to the DNS protocol, including DNSSEC. Adoption of
new work targeted for standards track will require changes to this
charter.

The working group can nevertheless undertake work in following
subjects without a charter change:
	DNSSEC and TSIG/TKEY algorithm maintenance
	Hardening DNS protocol and providing guidance to implementors
	Examining transport protocols possibly adding new ones.
	Advancing existing Proposed Standard RFCs to Draft/Full Standard
	Obsoleting RFCs.

Before formal adoption of any such items at least 5 working group
participants must publicly state that the item is within charter and is
worthwhile item for further study.

The DNSEXT WG will conduct the specified RFC5395 review of RR
templates as they are posted, and EDNS0 Option templates if EDNS0-bis
updates registration requirements.

The WG will review DNS protocol related work which may originate
elsewhere in the IETF, including AD-sponsored submissions or drafts
in other working group. The WG does not intend to hold face to face
meetings, though may do so if deemed necessary for resolution of a
specific issue at hand. 

Milestones:
Jul  2009  TSIG/MD5 Obsoleting to IESG. 
Jul  2009  RSA/SHA256 to IESG. 
Aug  2009  AXFR Clarify  to IESG.
Sep  2009  EDNS0 Ping Option advanced to IESG 
Oct  2009  Resolver side Forgery Resilience advanced to IESG
Oct  2009  DNSSEC Errata document to IESG 
Nov  2009  GOST DNSKEY and DS support advanced to IESG
Dec  2009  EDNS0-bis update advanced to IESG 
Feb  2010  DNS existing transport protocol recommendations/clarifications
to IESG 
Jun  2010  DNS <new> transport protocol specification

--
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: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:12:19 +0200

All,

> new work targeted for standards track will require changes to this

Just so I'm clear, this means IXFR-ONLY is out of scope and the work
needs to be done outside of DNSEXT? As would any other new DNS work
except for the 5 items listed?

--
Shane

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:48:19 -0400

> except for the 5 items listed?

Well, note that the charter hasn't been adopted yet.  But yes, that's
the idea.  If there were consensus to adopt the work, the WG would
need to be rechartered again (unless many people say now, "Yes, adopt
that," in which case we could add it to the charter right away).

Remember that we put the WG "to sleep" some time ago, on the general
principle that continued tinkering with a protocol as mature as DNS
was not a great idea.  That's not to say there are no refinements to
make.  But the idea was to have a high bar for additional work, in
order to make sure that the additional work was really valuable before
undertaking it.  As it is, it seems to me we're at least somnambulent:
we seem to be pretty busy for someone sleeping.

Best,

Andrew (for the Chairs)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:45:53 +0200

Andrew,

> we seem to be pretty busy for someone sleeping.

I confess to zoning out during the discussion about going dormant,
because it was one of those topics that everyone can immediately
understand and form an instant opinion. So there were lots of speeches
at the microphones, huge e-mail threads with low signal-to-noise ratios,
and so on. Apologies for my lack of attention. It seemed to make sense
from a theoretical point of view though.

The current style of DNS standards work seems to be that we have a
number of people working full-time on DNS stuff, and occasionally they
think of something that should be standardized, so when they have a few
moments they write something down and present it to the dnsext working
group. This seems to work pretty good (except for the huge mass of
confusing RFCs, hopefully an effort to fix that will arise again some
day).

I'm not sure if the IXFR-ONLY stuff is interesting enough for a
recharter. (I'm happy to pursue it as an individual submission, although
I heard horror stories about that process. Maybe that was only in the
past though.) Weird that we have a system designed to make it hard to
make small tweaks but easy to make major changes though!

Maybe we should collect small DNS work in a separate area and then
create a "dnsfix" group every now and then to push them through the
standards process? It hardly seems ideal, but...

--
Shane

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:09:27 -0400

> confusing RFCs, hopefully an effort to fix that will arise again some

Well, the last effort was undertaken as a planned attack on the
overall problem.  It failed because we didn't get text.  It could be,
however, that a less centrally-planned effort would work.  If someone
were to write a "DNS Guide to the Perplexed" as an I-D and just ask
for comments, perhaps it would bear fruit. 
 
> make small tweaks but easy to make major changes though!

That might be an important observation about the charter as it is
written.  Are there others who think this is a potential problem?  It
would be good to hear that now, while the IESG still hasn't made a
decision.
 
> standards process? It hardly seems ideal, but...

Creating a new group would be even more work than just rechartering
DNSEXT to do the work, I note.  But perhaps your suggesting includes
an implicit step, "Shut down DNSEXT."  Since the fondest hope of every
working group chair is supposed to be the closing down of the working
group on the grounds that there's no more work to do, I plan to be the
last voice opposing that suggestion if indeed you are making it. 

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Jelte Jansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:27:54 +0200

> for comments, perhaps it would bear fruit. 

Everytime this issue comes up I'm wondering where we got so deep into the RFC 
model that we are actually discussing writing a new RFC to counter the problem 
of having too many RFCs...

My general issue with that still stands; the DNS-in-a-nutshell RFC will be 
outdated as soon as dns-I'm-still-alive-ext publishes a new extension. It's what 
we do, and despite multiple attempts to kill the working group, no hero has 
succeeded yet. The update for Nutshell will be an RFC itself, effectively 
multiplying the DNS RFC growth rate.

Not that I'm against the effort; and overview of DNS in it's current state, with 
references to the myriad of RFCs and other known extensions/exceptions, would be 
fantastic. But IMHO it would be better implemented as either a website or a 
non-RFC publication. And it would only be useful if actually kept up-to-date.

> last voice opposing that suggestion if indeed you are making it. 

Speaking from recent personal experience, classifying dnsext-related work as 
"small" work can be harder than it seems. There's also the protocol-police part 
that's in both the current and the proposed charters to consider when thinking 
about shutting down btw.

I think it's worth it to try and get IFXR-only in the charter now (or consensus 
that the work is not worth it), which will save us at least one recharter. But 
it appears that frequent recharters are inevitable with an immortal working group.

Jelte

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:37:24 +1000

> non-RFC publication. And it would only be useful if actually kept up-to-date.

This sounds like a excellent plan.
 
Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:59:20 -0400

> This sounds like a excellent plan.

The above sounds like two volunteers :-)  Anyone else?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:37:15 +0000

> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:59:20 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> 

i'm in favour of a recurring RFC, annual or biannual, vs. a website.

> The above sounds like two volunteers :-)  Anyone else?

i'm willing to help.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:23:34 -0400

> i'm in favour of a recurring RFC, annual or biannual, vs. a website.

strong preference for dead tree. cites better, especially when wrong and 
needs fixing, than something that has vanishing blemies (and takes 
continuous work to maintain, and for which there is no "standard", for 
which i thank the rfc templates.

>> The above sounds like two volunteers :-)  Anyone else?

ditto.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:25:04 -0400

Dear colleagues,

This sounds like another possible revision to the charter. If you want  
that, please say you want to take on this work item. We already have  
two volunteers.

Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

On 2009-07-14, at 19:23, Eric Brunner-Williams  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> strong preference for dead tree. cites better, especially when wrong  
> and needs fixing, than something that has vanishing blemies (and  
> takes continuous work to maintain, and for which there is no  
> "standard", for which i thank the rfc templates.
>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:33:54 +0000

> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:23:34 -0400
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
> 

another advantage to this approach is that if we rewrite 1033-1034-1035 to
include all-that-has-come-since-then (*), then future dns-related RFC work
will boil down to arguing about edits to these documents.  that would make
it sort of like corporate bylaws or the ARIN NRPM.  otherwise the list of
RFC's that an implementor has to follow is ever-changing guesswork (as now).

(*) note that the rfc editor was significantly confused by the DNSSEC work
and decided to reserve the 4034/4035 numbers the same way as 2821/2822 was
reserved for the SMTP rewrite.  4034/4035 was additive, not a rewrite, as
makes sense in the working group's historical style of acting additively:
simply put, there is no single base DNS spec to rewrite at this point.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:49:20 +0000

> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:25:04 -0400
> 
> This sounds like another possible revision to the charter. ...

my apologies for that.  i don't think in terms of the charter, i think in
terms of what dns needs.  the updated charter is a find description of what
various volunteers want to work on, but i don't actually want to work on any
of this, it's more of a duty for me, so i don't think that way either.

dns needs what smtp got in 2821/2822, and then that replacement will need to
be replaced every year or two to pull in new ideas and new work, plus the
inevitable editorial clarity improvements.  i don't know how to fit that into
the kind of thinking that goes into editing the charter but i hope you do.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:14:27 +0000

> simply put, there is no single base DNS spec to rewrite at this point.

	that makes it tough to argue that a reference implementation
	exists or even could exist.  or that the IETF goal of 
	multiple, interoperable implementations need to exist to 
	promote on the standards path.

	this way lies maddness.   (and no doubt profitability - but
	at the expense of a useful, global system.)

	as usual, YMMV

--bill

---

From: "Roy Arends" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:36:28 +0200

> The above sounds like two volunteers :-)  Anyone else?

I prefer rfc form. Like 4033/4/5 was for 2535 and subsequent updates. I 
volunteer.

Roy

---

From: João Damas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:27:40 +0200

On 15 Jul 2009, at 07:36, Roy Arends wrote:

> I prefer rfc form. Like 4033/4/5 was for 2535 and subsequent  
> updates. I volunteer.

So do I, again.
I do like the web site approach for putting this together. When it is  
at a stage that deserves taking a snapshot in the form of an RFC, then  
that can be done, but a visible web site would be a good thing. I have  
a feeling last time around this effort wasn't helped by the closed  
nature of the text repository.

Joao

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:37:38 -0400

>from a theoretical point of view though.

No problem I wish I could have tuned that discussion out.
But over the last addition to DNS OpCodes was Update RFC2136/Apr-1997
(we retired an Opcode in RFC3425/Nov-2002, similarly we last change to
Response codes are defined in a total of 6 RFC's most in RFC1034 and RFC2136.

NSEC3 is the last item that has required heavy protocol work.
Thus it is fair to say "DNS is stable protocol".

Ideas that require actual new protocol work or registrations have been few
over the last decade thus the current draft charter seemed appropriate.

Recharterning is not that difficult it only takes time :-), it seems to me
that your "brilliant" idea needs a recharter due to its "brilliance" :-)

>make small tweaks but easy to make major changes though!

It will still land in the WG group.

>standards process? It hardly seems ideal, but...

What is there to fix ?

If WG thinks thinks this idea warrants a further study, then the 
right thing to do
is to send a note to the IESG saying that following line should be 
added to the
draft charter:
         "IXFR-Only standardization"

With following Milestone:
         "20xx Mon     IXFR-Only submitted to IESG"

         Olafur

         Olafur

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:35:42 -0400

>nature of the text repository.

I would like to make the suggestion that we attack this as a two phase project
the first phase is to create a web site with most of the content
the second phase is to actually take the and generate RFC's.

This way we can hopefully quickly get a 
reasonable skeleton, and figure out what
to argue about.

I have battle-scars from dealing with large documents with many moving parts
as people argue only about one section at the time.
Further allowing people to edit their own sections with tracking of changes
as an experiment is something we have not done but I'm curious to see what
will happen.

Further more web site can be more "content" rich than RFC and illustrations
IMHO will help us reach consensus faster than pure text.

         Olafur