Subject: (IPng 6495) W.G. Last Call on "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version"

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:54:23 -0700

This is a IPng working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as a Proposed Standard:

	Title		: DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6
	Author(s)	: M. Crawford, C. Huitema, S. Thomson
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-02.txt
	Pages		: 15
	Date		: 15-Sep-98

Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor
editorial comments to the authors.  This last call period will end two
week from today on October 2, 1998.

Bob Hinden / Steve Deering

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:20:28 -0700 (PDT)

> Bob Hinden / Steve Deering

While I understand the desire to make forward progress, this particular
item is still being discussed on the ngtrans and namedroppers lists
as people still are trying to understand the magnitude of change in 
existing practice that this draft proposes.  IMHO, this last call could
be seen as railroading a unique, radically different, proposal into
the standards track before there is reasonable understanding of how
it is expected to interoperate, not only with the existing DNS for
IPv4 but with the existing IPv6 practice.  

As a question to the chairs;  do you understand the impact of this
draft on IPv6?  Is this draft ready for a two week last call? Its 
only been in the drafts directories for 2 whole days.

--bill

---

From: Craig Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:13:58 -0300

In message <[email-masked]>, you write:
>IMHO, this last call could

  I agree with Bill. Moving this draft forward is *very* premature.

									-Craig

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:27:34 -0400

> following document as a Proposed Standard:

FYI, A quick look at this document indicates it has some normative
dependencies on other drafts, including:

    [BITLBL] M. Crawford, "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
             currently draft-ietf-dnsind-binary-labels-01.txt.

    [DNAME]  M. Crawford, "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection", currently
             draft-ietf-dnsind-dname-00.txt.
	     
    [EDNS1]  P. Vixie, "Extensions to DNS (EDNS1)", currently draft-
             ietf-dnsind-edns1-00.txt.

    [LOCOMP] P. Koch, "A New Scheme for the Compression of Domain
             Names", currently draft-ietf-dnsind-local-compression-
             01.txt.

As a practical matter, the document can't/won't advance until the
corresponding documents are also ready to move forward.  RFC 2026
prohibits the publishing of Standards Track documents that have
references to drafts, when those drafts are needed in order to
properly implement a protocol being documented.

Thomas

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:54:02 -0500

> IMHO, this last call could be seen as railroading a unique,
> radically different, proposal into the standards track ...
> 
> ...  Is this draft ready for a two week last call? Its 

Everything to do with the "radical uniqueness" was present in

   draft-ietf-ipngwg-aaaa-03.txt -- February 6, 1998
or
   draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-00.txt -- March 13, 1998.

The current draft which you say we are trying to "railroad" is an
update of

   draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-01.txt -- August 7, 1998

which in turn was just a merge of the two drafts above.

If you didn't find anything to object to in February or March, what
happened in the six to seven months since then?  Could it be that a
WG last call was the only way to get the thing READ by the armchair
pundits???

If you have some particular TECHNICAL point to make, Bill, I'm eager
to see it, because you're not thought to be entirely clueless about
DNS.  But if you just want to whine that you haven't had time to read
the draft, you have six months of inaction and silence to account for.

					Matt

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:03:56 -0500

> ...
> corresponding documents are also ready to move forward.

Thank you Mr. AD.  The first two are a week AHEAD of this document,
i.e., WG last call began a week ago.  I'm not sure where the third
one sits, but I believe it's +- two weeks of the same stage as the
draft under discussion, and I would argue that the fourth reference
might not be "normative".

Do I seem grumpy?  At the LA meeting the working group asked that
this work should be moved forward quickly.  I don't want to hear the
snails and tortoises complaining about the dust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:12:58 -0700

Bill,

>only been in the drafts directories for 2 whole days.

As documented in the minutes from the Chicago IETF, this draft was
discussed and there was a consensus that it was ready for a w.g. last call.
 This document and/or it's predecessors have been discussed in at least the
last two IETF meetings.  

I am sure you know this, but for others on the list it is important to know
there can be two outcomes from a w.g. last call.  

  1) Move it forward to the IESG requesting the IESG published at as
     proposed standard, resulting in an IETF last call, IETF consideration,
     etc.  

  2) Deciding it is not ready for advancement due to technical issues
     raised.

Doing a w.g. last call does not automatically mean it will be advanced.  A
w.g. last call to is find out if it is ready to be advanced.

So as it was stated in the last call:

  Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor
  editorial comments to the authors.

Bob

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:25:15 -0700 (PDT)

Well, I was rather partial to the DBIT proposal. This looks roughly 
similar. (sorry, had to actually build a network in the last six 
months so I was not paying too much attention)  What seems odd
is that this particular draft showed up as an activity of the IPv6
wg and not DNSIND wg.  If I was only in the DNSIND wg I'd not know that
this significant change in the behaviour of servers/resolvers
was to be expected so soon.

I'll have comments on this, and the other drafts that are pending
in the next few days.  (Off the cuff question for those whom have
actually thought about this in the context of these linked drafts;
What is the impact of this proposal on the DNS-SEC work, particularly
for signing synth'ed RR's?)

--bill (armchair zone admin and part time DNS code hacker)