Subject: Re: [regext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-regext-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:55:49 +0530

> - "The working group will exist as long as there is an extension
> seeking standards track status." Urgh. That encourages folks to
> keep coming with possibly crazy proposals. While that's not too
> likely at first, over time the probability of that will, I think,
> increase. It'd perhaps be better to bound this somehow, e.g. with
> a date by which the WG needs to re-charter, e.g. "if not done by Jan
> 2018, the a re-charter is needed," or maybe "The WG will need to
> re-charter when there are no current standards-track extensions
> being developed" or something else.

Good comment; thanks.  I'll put something in for this.

> - This wasn't clear to me:
> "The working group will also identify the requirements for a
> registration protocol where a third-party DNS provider is involved."
> Almost all DNS queries involve 3rd parties. Can you clarify what's
> meant? (It may be clear from the documents that I've not read,
> but not from the charter.)

Leaving that for the working group.  Folks...?

Barry

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:30:20 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:26 PM
> To: Stephen Farrell
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [regext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-
> regext-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[snip]

> Leaving that for the working group.  Folks...?

I had suggested changing "DNS provider" to "service provider". I guess that didn't get in. Anyway...

The idea is to consider use cases that allow some non-registrar service provider to exchange information with a registry without having to have a registrar proxy in the middle of the information exchange.

Scott

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:33:23 -0500

On 16 Feb 2016, at 12:25, Barry Leiba wrote:

>> Almost all DNS queries involve 3rd parties.

third party in the context of the registration system: not a registrar, 
not a registry.

see below.

>> Can you clarify what's

this is related to: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-01

<abstract_extract>
    There are several problems that arise in the standard
    Registrant/Registrar/Registry model when the operator of a zone is
    neither the Registrant nor the Registrar for the delegation.
    Historically the issues have been minor, and limited to difficulty
    guiding the Registrant through the initial changes to the NS records
    for the delegation.  As this is usually a one time activity when the
    operator first takes charge of the zone it has not been treated as a
    serious issue.

    When the domain on the other hand uses DNSSEC it necessary for the
    Registrant in this situation to make regular (sometimes annual)
    changes to the delegation in order to track KSK rollover, by 
updating
    the delegation's DS record(s).  Under the current model this is 
prone
    to Registrant error and significant delays.  Even when the 
Registrant
    has outsourced the operation of DNS to a third party the registrant
    still has to be in the loop to update the DS record.

    There is a need for a simple protocol that allows a third party DNS
    operator to update DS and NS records in a trusted manner for a
    delegation without involving the registrant for each operation.

    The protocol described in this draft is REST based, and when used
    through an authenticated channel can be used to establish the DNSSEC
    Initial Trust (to turn on DNSSEC or bootstrap DNSSEC).  Once DNSSEC
    trust is established this channel can be used to trigger maintenance
    of delegation records such as DS, NS, and glue records.  The 
protocol
    is kept as simple as possible.
</abstract_extract>

>
> Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

---

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:04:50 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-regext-00-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-regext/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two comments:

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:34:53 +0000

On 16/02/16 17:30, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From: regext
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent:
>> Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:26 PM To: Stephen Farrell Cc:
>> [email-masked]; The IESG; [email-masked] Subject: Re:
>> [regext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf- 
>>> - This wasn't clear to me: "The working group will also identify
>>> the requirements for a registration protocol where a third-party
>>> DNS provider is involved." Almost all DNS queries involve 3rd
>>> parties. Can you clarify what's meant? (It may be clear from the
>>> documents that I've not read, but not from the charter.)
>> 
> The idea is to consider use cases that allow some non-registrar
> service provider to exchange information with a registry without
> having to have a registrar proxy in the middle of the information
> exchange.

I think the above is clearer, and I'd encourage re-wording along
those lines, if involved folks agree.

(And I like the idea, speaking as someone who's struggling to find
a way to get a DS RR into the .net zone without changing registrar:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 02:21:31 +0530

Please see if the version I just saved (-00-01) resolves both issues.

Barry

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:04:01 -0600

Hi, Barry,

> Good comment; thanks.  I'll put something in for this.

That also helps with my comment (another flavor of an ask for some kind of
boundary). If the standards track proposals can't be categorized, this is
the next best thing to include.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:00:52 +0000

> Please see if the version I just saved (-00-01) resolves both issues.

Works for me,
Thanks,
S

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Feb 2016 00:00:23 -0000

>Please see if the version I just saved (-00-01) resolves both issues.

Looks OK, but why the bit about Informational status in the
penultimate paragraph?  If the WG approves something like the Latour
draft I'd think it'd likely make sense for it to be standards track.

R's,
John