Subject: Re: [DNSOP] WGLC: "Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:04:24 +0200

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 04:45:00AM +0100,
 Peter Koch <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
> a working group last call on
> 
> 	"Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping"
> 	draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
> 
> ending Friday, 2008-04-04, 18:00 UTC.

What happened to this draft? There have been a few comments, all of
them positive (except the one from JINMEI Tatuya) and nothing was
announced and the I-D tracker seems to indicate that the draft was not
transferred to IESG.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:04:24 +0200

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:46:50 -0400 (EDT)

Err, lets try to keep the facts straight: not all were positive. Besides
JINMEI Tatuya, my evaluation was also very much a thumbs down.

If this document is/was approved, I will probably file an appeal with
the IESG, and a place a discrediting page on IETF-watch. If anyone wants
to join me in the appeal or discredits, please let me know.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 14:46:50 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean

---

From: bill fumerola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:28:13 -0700

> announced and the I-D tracker seems to indicate that the draft was not

i'd [still] like to see this document move forward.

there were several issues opened when WGLC was made, i can't find
where these were made to see if they've been addressed in the most
recent draft. this was referred to as issue 20.

if -06 is what is going to be sent upstream, we should make sure those
issued raised were covered. according to the minutes, those changes
followed by an immediate WGLC was the only thing left to do.

-- bill fumerola // opendns, llc
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: bill fumerola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:28:13 -0700

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:50:12 -0400

> recent draft. this was referred to as issue 20.

I didn't update the draft, because nobody (and in particular, the
people whose objections I was trying to address) responded to the
suggestions.  My feeling before the WGLC was that things were ok.  My
feeling after the comments I received in WGLC was that there was a
problem with the definitions (which definitely need fixing).  I tried
to find some different language to address the other objections, but
since nobody responded to my suggestions, I just concluded they didn't
care that much (or wouldn't be satisfied regardless).  I'm hoping for
direction from the WG on what to do with these things.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:50:12 -0400

A