Minutes interim-2024-dnsop-01: Tue 17:00
minutes-interim-2024-dnsop-01-202401301700-00
Meeting Minutes | Domain Name System Operations (dnsop) WG | |
---|---|---|
Date and time | 2024-01-30 17:00 | |
Title | Minutes interim-2024-dnsop-01: Tue 17:00 | |
State | Active | |
Other versions | plain text | |
Last updated | 2024-01-30 |
minutes-interim-2024-dnsop-01-202401301700-00
DNSOP WG Interim meeting 2024-01-30 1700 UTC Chairs: Benno Overeinder, Suzanne Woolf, Tim Wicinski Minutes taken by Paul Hoffman Only stuff said that happened at the mic is reported here Agenda: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2024-dnsop Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-dnsop-01/session/dnsop Intro from the chairs This interim is for bootstrapping the topic before IETF119 Presentation on state of DELEG draft, Ralf Weber https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-deleg/ Legacy resolver compliance testing results, Roy Arends Open discussion points in the draft Viktor Dukovni: Didn't see Microsoft's resolver tested; very different in origin Found the draft more confusing than illuminating Examples are haphazard Wants reorganization Wants a motivations document; what problem are we solving Roy: Maybe split the document into different topics This document is core Another document can have all the offerings Another document that gives an introduction to the whole thing This is a -00 Ralf: Wanted to get it ready for the interim OK with splitting out motivations into a different draft Suzanne: this discussion is not about specifics in the draft Initial reflections on DELEG, Paul Wouters Open discussion: discussion and reflection on interim Suzanne: Process discussion not today Ralf: PaulW's proposal #1 didn't want to do this to prolong DELEG Can happen in parallel There are plenty of implementations that don't share names Viktor: The idea of having more records at the parent needs motivation, but seems mostly harmless Putting more records puts more pressure on resolvers under attack Warren Kumari: Process-related BoF request was for extensions IESG doesn't feel that you can have a BoF for something that doesn't exist Wants the BoF to be about DELEG itself No assumption that people have been at interim Maybe a WG-forming BoF Need to be careful that DNSOPs folks participate Thus, in OPS Scheduled right after DNSOP so that there is overlap Roy: Will talk with Warren about the BoF request Viktor: Make the draft shorter and clearer Benno: Keep contributing to the DNSOP mailing list, specific text can go into the repo Peter Thomassen: Where to discuss this? Benno: On the mailing list Suzanne: This helps identify new work that might be spun off Benno: Protocol discussion on the mailing list Ralf: People coming early to DNS-OARC next week, there is an informal room on Wednesday