Subject: [dnsext] Draft minutes from interim meeting today

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:36:27 -0500

Dear colleagues,

Attached are draft minutes and decisions from today's meeting.

I'd appreciate it if attendees could review them.  If I get no
corrections by Friday (2010-02-19), I assume that I can consider them
final and submit them to the secretariat.

Thanks to participants for a productive meeting.

Best regards,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:58:26 +0000

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

> final and submit them to the secretariat.

	I attended by phone, and had some interruptions in connectivity.
	In particular, I missed the discussion after Paul Vixie's 
	presentation, but managed to return for the summary.

	Two things in the draft minutes surprised me, and I'ld appreciate
	clarification, as I may have misunderstood.

	First was the "scope creep" in applying Vixie's constraints to 
	other solutions than CLONE.  As I missed the discussion of his
	presentation, I need to ask whether the meeting understood that
	these constraints should apply to all solutions.

	Second was that, although I believe that I was back in time for
	the beginning of summary, I can't recall hearing words to the effect 
	that [i]tems 7-9 are inconsistent with Paul Vixie's set of conditions.
	Was this actually said at the meeting, or is it an obiter dictum
	from the chair?  What I thought I heard was rather that items 7-9
	hadn't been discussed in any detail, but hadn't been counted out
	either.

	Thanks in advance, and apologies if I'm just wrong.

	Best regards
	Niall O'Reilly

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:22:16 -0500

Niall,

First, thanks for your careful checking of the minutes!

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:58:26AM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:

> 	First was the "scope creep" in applying Vixie's constraints to 	other 
> solutions than CLONE.  As I missed the discussion of his

Excellent question.  That the constraints were to be applied generally
to what we were trying to do was indeed what I thought I heard.  If
people did not intend me to interpret things that way, it would be
useful to learn that as soon as possible.  I'll leave this in the
minutes unchanged regardless, but if people correct my
misapprehension, I will add a note to the minutes to the effect that
subsequent discussion revealed that the chair, in his usual dozy way,
misunderstood the intention of the WG.

> 	hadn't been discussed in any detail, but hadn't been counted out

This is a good point.  Olafur actually pointed it out to me after the
meeting as an entailment of what the WG appeared to have agreed upon.
Highlighting that this emerged later is what the "everyone may not
have realised" remark is about.  But I think you're right that it
doesn't clarify what happened in the meeting.  How's this:

        Items 7-9 are inconsistent with Paul Vixie's set of
        conditions.  The WG seemed to indicate that those conditions
        were the right ones.  At the meeting, the chair noted that
        items 7-9 had not been discussed, but since they are
        inconsistent with the apprehended view of the WG, they're not
        live options.  Everyone may not have realised this consequence
        [note: the chair didn't at the time] , so the WG chairs will
        treat this entailment as unsettled for the time being.

?
    
> 	Thanks in advance, and apologies if I'm just wrong.

No, you're not wrong.  These are excellent questions & why we post
minutes as drafts before finalising.  Thanks very much!

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:31:46 +0000

> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:22:16 -0500
> From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> 

the audio was poor.  it's easy to imagine people humming to my constraints
thinking we were doing so for zone clones even though you thought you'd
asked us whether we were ready to adopt my constraints for all solutions.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:03:00 -0500

> asked us whether we were ready to adopt my constraints for all solutions.

I fully agree.  I don't want to be process-hidebound, but I want both
of these things:

    - the minutes to reflect what actually transpired.

    - the minutes to include clarification and discussion that came up
      later.

The second is of course not the normal purpose of minutes, but I don't
see any value at all in adding yet more places to look things up if we
can use the minutes of the meeting as a convenient place to capture
what we actually conclude.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:35:36 +0000

> First, thanks for your careful checking of the minutes!

    Too kind!

> misunderstood the intention of the WG.

    Fine.

>         treat this entailment as unsettled for the time being.

    Works for me.

    I think there's some horses-for-courses argument to be made about
    both whether the constraints are uniformly applicable irrespective of 
    how far (zone-cut count) a zone is from the root, and the possibility
    that CLONE and 7-9 are complementary solutions, each fitting its own
    part of the problem space.  I read "unsettled" as indicating that scope
    for that discussion is not closed at this stage.

    That's what I wanted to be clear on, and why I asked.

    I'll follow up under an appropriate subject header.

> minutes as drafts before finalising.  Thanks very much!

    Again, you're too kind.  Thanks for your reassuring and
    encouraging reply.

    Best regards,

    Niall O'Reilly

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:43:24 +0000

Slide 3:
                    Constraints
  Must not require stubs or recursives to be upgraded,
  since there are millions of these and the tail is long

No comment needed.

  Must be an Internet Standard, not a proprietary or
  adhoc extension, to facilitate multivendor operation

No comment needed.

  Must not place any burden on registry, which may
  be regulated (so, autoinsertion into root zone, no!)

See comment to next following point.

  Authority server operators, protocol implementors,
  and registrars can accept burdens, since they have
  incentives, and are few in number

Other players have incentives, and may be expected to
accept burdens.  Certain ccTLD registries appear to have
cultural and/or political incentives (one might even say, 
imperatives).  The constraint of not burdening the registry
seems to be inappropriate in such a case.

Slide 4:
                   Assumptions
  A registrant can select and direct its nameserver
  operators in light of new Internet Standards

Viewed from the point of view of its parent zone, every
registry is a registrant, and so has the same freedom.  
The exception is the root zone registry, which is a hapless 
orphan.

  Implementors and operators can respond to market
  pressures or not, regarding new feature development

No comment needed.

  A requirement that all of a zone's authority servers
  be upgraded before that zone can support a new
  feature like “zone clones” is thus reasonable

No comment needed.

  Not all equivilanced namespaces will have the same
  parent, e.g., vixie.sf.ca.us vs. vix.com.

Nice example!

Slide 8:
                    Limitations
  Only works for leaf zones, since a delegation would
  have to propagate its CLONE RR to its children
  (open question: should we allow such propagation
  or allow grandchildren to search upward for
  CLONE? Note: this could get very expensive!)

IIUC, at least one anticipated IDN TLD will need a cluster
of variants at TLD level, will need to offer variant clusters
to registrants, and may well have registrants who delegate 
onward.  I wonder whether a solution which accommodates leaf
zones only matches the likely use cases.

The BNAME idea seems to offer a means of containing the cost 
for such a use case, as fanout for BNAME is additive rather 
than multiplicative.  Just as DNAME was specified to accommodate
"legacy" recursives, so BNAME can be, but avoiding the 0 TTL in
synthesis is probably essential.

  Requires strong trust between registry and
  registrar/registrant, this is probably a high-fee
  service that would not be enabled by default

It might very well be the default offering where the 
cultural/political incentive is effectively an imperative.

  Requires key sharing among zone and its clones,
  and multiple zone signing events (for DNSSEC)

No comment needed.

IHTH

Niall O'Reilly

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:56:22 -0500

On 17/02/2010 6:31 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> From: Andrew Sullivan<[email-masked]>
>>

I think that the possbile solutions in this space can be grouped into 
two big buckets "Replication" and "Indirection". (The "Not a Problem" 
bucket has been ruled out).

My guess is that you intented to set the scope for solutions in the 
"Replication" space w/o influencing any solutions in the "Indirection" 
space.

This realization did not come to me until after the meeting, and having 
had time to reflect on what I heard on the phone and reading Andrews 
draft minutes.

Please clarify what solution space you intented your scope statement to 
cover. Any way for due process the chairs need to confirm on the mailing 
list that the working group agrees with the proposed path forward.

	Olafur

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:06:43 +0000

> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:56:22 -0500
> From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
> ...
> ...

i listed the constraints that guided my design for zone clones.  i think
they are the right constraints for any solution to namespace aliasing, but
as you expected, i can defend it better for replication than indirection.

in other words i was not trying to add to the problem statement, only to
illuminate my own personal guideance to aid in evaluating my design for
zone clones.  but if the WG wants to adopt those constraints more generally
that's also fine by me.

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:48:27 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Draft minutes from interim meeting today

> useful to learn that as soon as possible. 

I have the feeling that the constraints are mainly applied to zone clone solution.
some points might be extended to other solutions, but not every point.

Yao Jiankang

> I'll leave this in the

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:50:31 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Vixie" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Draft minutes from interim meeting today 

> asked us whether we were ready to adopt my constraints for all solutions.

I am thinking that I am huming your constraints to your zone clones.

---

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:01:03 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Olafur Gudmundsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Paul Vixie" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Draft minutes from interim meeting today

> bucket has been ruled out).

+1

---

From: "Health" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:09:29 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Vixie" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Draft minutes from interim meeting today 

>other words i was not trying to add to the problem statement, only to
> zone clones. 

+1