WikiStart: dnsext-interim-minutes-2010-03-02a.txt

File dnsext-interim-minutes-2010-03-02a.txt, 4.4 KB (added by ajs@…, 12 years ago)

Interim meeting minutes

Line 
1Minutes of the interim virtual meeting of the IETF DNS Extensions
2Working Group
3
42010-02-16 15:00 UTC
5
6via teleconference and Webex session.  Approximately 35 attendees.
7
8The meeting was chaired by WG co-chair Andrew Sullivan.
9
10The chair opened the meeting, apologised for some unexpected
11technical limitations.  The chair reminded everyone that the meeting
12is an IETF activity, covered by the Note Well statement and the
13relevant IPR rules, and that participants should "sign the blue
14sheets" by sending email to the chair noting their participation.
15The chair took names from the Webex session, but may not have access
16to the email addresses associated.
17
18The chair outlined the goals of the meeting, and opened the floor for
19discussion.  Remarks in favour of there being a problem to solve came
20from Vaggelis Segredakis, Paul Hoffman, and Sotiris Panaretou.
21
22The chair asked participants whether anyone thought there was
23not a problem to solve.  The chair heard nobody argue for this.
24
25The chair asked about acceptable limitations.  Does anyone think
26that what is really needed is a replacement of the DNS protocols?
27There were no responses.
28
29The chair next asked whether it is acceptable that zone administrators
30need to understand whether they are in a "canonical chain" or not.
31There was some discussion around this matter, with the initial
32observation that it was how things had to work today anyway.  Further
33discussion illuminated that the problem persists down the chain,
34because "variant" children down the tree might not realise that they
35are working in a variant space, and that there may be problems as a
36result.  Jim Reid worried that this could lead to a "hall of mirrors"
37and that the best answers therefore all lie in provisioning rather
38than DNS responses.  This led naturally to the presentation of the
39zone clone idea from Paul Vixie.
40
41The presentation offered a number of questions of detail that would
42need to be settled in order to standardize the zone clone proposal.
43Paul Vixie included some constraints on solutions in his presentation:
44
45-Must not require stubs or recursives to be upgraded, since there are
46millions of these and the tail is long
47
48- Must be an Internet Standard, not a proprietary or adhoc extension,
49to facilitate multivendor operation
50
51- Must not place any burden on registry, which may be regulated (so,
52autoinsertion into root zone, no!)
53 
54- Authority server operators, protocol implementors, and registrars
55can accept burdens, since they have incentives, and are few in number
56
57After discussion, the chair asked for a sense of the WG.  There
58was considerable support heard for the constraints, and no
59opposition.  These therefore appear to be useful constraints on the
60WG's plans.  The chair understood the WG's desire to apply generally
61to work in this area, but subsequent conversations clarified that many
62participants thought the constraints to apply just to zone clones. 
63
64The chair summarized what he had heard from the WG during the meeting.
65It appears that the WG has eliminated "do nothing", "provisioning
66only", "CNAME-only" or "DNAME-only" approaches.  There was little
67discussion of the BNAME proposal.  There was no discussion of altering
68DNAME to allow inclusion of CNAME in the answer.  There was no
69discussion of other approaches.  So, from the WG's Wiki outline, items
701, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all seem to be ruled out.  Item 3 appears to be an
71option.
72
73Items 7-9 are inconsistent with Paul Vixie's set of conditions.  The
74WG seemed to indicate that those conditions were the right ones.  At
75the meeting, the chair noted that items 7-9 had not been discussed,
76but since they are inconsistent with the apprehended view of the WG,
77they're not live options.  Everyone may not have realised this
78consequence [note: the chair didn't at the time] , so the WG chairs
79will treat this entailment as unsettled for the time being.
80
81The chair took names of people who are willing to work on the problem.
82There was enough indication of support to suggest that the WG might
83want to tackle the problem.  The next steps are to get solid drafts to
84evaluate, to ensure the problem statement is correctly narrowed in
85time for Anaheim, and to advertise part of the Anaheim meeting widely
86to attract as many interested parties as possible, in order to check
87assumptions before the WG progresses too far on this work item.  If
88that meeting is successful and clear in its outcome, then this item
89will be adopted as a WG work item with clear milestones.
90