Subject: [dnsext] Reminder: interim WG meeting 2010-02-16

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:58:36 -0500

Dear colleagues,

This serves as a reminder that we have scheduled an interim meeting of
the WG, by virtual means, on 2010-02-16 at 15:00 UTC.

The purpose of the meeting is to try to come to some conclusions about
the topic of name redirection.

We will try to cover all the items in the "Partial solution space"
outline in the meeting announcement.  It can be found at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsext/trac/wiki.

At the moment, there are two drafts in this space for the WG to consider:

draft-yao-dnsext-bname-01.txt proposes a specific approach.

draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-00.txt is one problem statement.

If other drafts were submitted before the deadline, the Chairs are
unaware of them.  Please bring them to our attention.

We would appreciate participants coming to the meeting with some
thoughts about whether there is in fact a problem to solve and what
changes might be acceptable and unacceptable.  It is also terribly
important that each participant have a clear and committed idea of how
much work he or she personally is willing to do on this topic (and be
willing to make that commitment to the WG).

We'll only have an hour, so to ensure we have a good basis for
discussion we'd appreciate it if anyone having a position statement
post it to the list in advance, so that people can read it and
understand it.  Please post it with the Subject "Position statement of
$NAME on DNS name equivalence", and please don't use another thread in
which to post (i.e. send a fresh message to namedroppers, and don't
reply to some other message).  If you have already posted a position,
it'd be great if you could post a new message with a link to the
archive, using the Subject: convention above.

We will post the dial-in information on the wiki later today.

Thanks,

Andrew and Olafur

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

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:34:14 +0000

> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:58:36 -0500
> From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> 
> understand it.

hereis.  note that the webex *.ICS file says 3 hours, not 1 hour.

> Please post it with the Subject "Position statement of $NAME on DNS name
> equivalence", and please don't use another thread in which to post
> (i.e. send a fresh message to namedroppers, and don't reply to some other
> message).  If you have already posted a position, it'd be great if you
> could post a new message with a link to the archive, using the Subject:
> convention above.

my position is, there's definitely a problem to solve here.  IDN can't use
DNAME since DNAME does not redirect its owner name, only subdomains thereof.
there may be other reasons to create equivilencies between namespaces, but
IDN is the problem child of the moment.

i like BNAME (which is just a fixed DNAME, that also redirects its owner
name), and i think it should go forward.  this won't create first class
names -- since they can't be referred to in MX or NS or PTR -- but they
will be application-visible and will thus serve many use cases.

i like zone clones (which is just syntactic configuration sugar in the
registrant's authority servers) since it creates first class names in a
standardized multivendor way, requiring only parallel NS delegations in
the registry.  i think zone clones should also go forward.

if BNAME and zone clones both go forward, then it's difficult to imagine
a use case that can't be met by one or the other.