Subject: [dnsext] No meeting planned for IETF 81

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:52:45 -0400

Dear colleagues,

We have not received any requests for meeting time in Quebec, and
there has not been, on the list, discussion of the sort that leads us
to believe there are things to resolve in a face to face session.
Therefore, we do not plan to request a meeting slot in Quebec.

If you think this to be in error, please raise it with us immediately.
Our ADs require an agenda to give us a meeting slot, so you must raise
any issue in time for us to prepare an agenda.

Best regards,

Andrew and Olafur

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:08:11 -0700

> any issue in time for us to prepare an agenda.

I am still holding out hope that there will be interest in my draft, 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barton-clone-dns-labels-fun-profit. I'm 
told that due to the title some people have assumed that it's a joke, 
but I assure you that it's intended as a serious offering.

I will not be able to attend the meeting in person, but I would be happy 
to prepare a presentation if there is interest, and could do a phone-in 
if that were possible/desirable.

Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:46:07 -0400

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:08:11AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barton-clone-dns-labels-fun-profit.

Even if there were interest in that draft, it states explicitly that
it is aiming at solving the problems outlined in
I-D.ietf-dnsext-aliasing-requirements.  That draft hasn't been updated
since March, and our plan was not to start work on particular
solutions to the problems before we came to consensus on the
requirements.  My impression from Prague was that there was another
round of comments, at least, to be folded into the requirements
document, so we're not in a position to talk about some way of
implementing it yet.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]