Skip to main content

Domain Boundaries
charter-ietf-dbound-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-01-30
01 Amy Vezza Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov from Barry Leiba
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from dbound@ietf.org to (None)
2015-04-10
01 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-01.txt
2015-04-10
00-07 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from IESG review
2015-04-10
00-07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2015-04-10
00-07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-04-10
00-07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2015-04-10
00-07 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2015-04-10
00-06 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2015-04-10
00-06 Cindy Morgan New version to fix line breaks.
2015-04-10
00-07 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-07.txt
2015-04-10
00-06 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2015-04-09
00-06 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-06.txt
2015-04-09
00-05 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-05.txt
2015-04-09
00-04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-04-09
00-04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-04-09
00-04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-04-08
00-04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-04-08
00-04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-04-08
00-04 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-04.txt
2015-04-08
00-03 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Just a nit:

In this text:

"This working group will not seek to amend the consuming protocols
themselves (standards for any web, email, …
[Ballot comment]
Just a nit:

In this text:

"This working group will not seek to amend the consuming protocols
themselves (standards for any web, email, or other such protocols)
without rechartering, and such rechartering will only be considered after
completion of the base work."

I was guessing that these emendations would happen in working groups that are responsible for the protocols, but this paragraph makes it sound like this working group would be rechartered to do that work. Is that what you intend to happen?
2015-04-08
00-03 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-04-08
00-03 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-04-08
00-03 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-04-07
00-03 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-04-06
00-03 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-04-06
00-03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-04-06
00-03 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-03-23
00-03 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-03-23
00-03 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2015-03-23
00-03 Barry Leiba State changed to IESG review from External review
2015-03-07
00-03 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-03.txt
2015-03-06
00-02 Cindy Morgan Telechat date has been changed to 2015-04-09 from 2015-01-22
2015-03-06
00-02 Cindy Morgan State changed to External review from Internal review
2015-03-06
00-02 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2015-03-06
00-01 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2015-03-06
00-01 Cindy Morgan WG review text was changed
2015-03-06
00-01 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Block
2015-03-06
00-02 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-02.txt
2015-03-06
00-01 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] Position for Richard Barnes has been changed to No Objection from Block
2015-01-22
00-01 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

It'd be great if this worked out and produced useful stuff.
That (getting started) is IMO more important than having
the best charter …
[Ballot comment]

It'd be great if this worked out and produced useful stuff.
That (getting started) is IMO more important than having
the best charter text ever, esp. for the external review
stage. I hope we quickly resolve any wording things (even
without reaching perfection) and shoot this out.
2015-01-22
00-01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-01-22
00-01 Benoît Claise
[Ballot block]
A related problem is known as the "equivalence problem", which is a
desire to express that two domains are equivalent, without using
existing …
[Ballot block]
A related problem is known as the "equivalence problem", which is a
desire to express that two domains are equivalent, without using
existing facilities like CNAME or DNAME that necessitate one of the
names being authoritative over the other.

"A related problem". Does it mean that the WG is chartered to solve this issue as well? I'm not sure.
The following sentence doesn't help me:
The DBOUND working group will develop a unified solution, if possible,
for determining organizational domain boundaries.
2015-01-22
00-01 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-01-22
00-01 Ted Lemon
[Ballot comment]
I would like to see the working group start from a narrow scope and recharter if the scope needs widening, as Richard has …
[Ballot comment]
I would like to see the working group start from a narrow scope and recharter if the scope needs widening, as Richard has suggested.
2015-01-22
00-01 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2015-01-22
00-01 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for already agreeing to reduce the text by removing the additional background and addresses Spencer's concern clearly in the text of the …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for already agreeing to reduce the text by removing the additional background and addresses Spencer's concern clearly in the text of the charter for related domains.
2015-01-22
00-01 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-01-22
00-01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-01-21
00-01 Richard Barnes
[Ballot block]
I find this paragraph really troubling:
"""
The DBOUND working group will develop a unified solution, if possible,
for determining organizational domain boundaries.  …
[Ballot block]
I find this paragraph really troubling:
"""
The DBOUND working group will develop a unified solution, if possible,
for determining organizational domain boundaries.  However, the working
group may discover that different solutions are needed to solve different
usage requirements.  Should that happen, the working group will
develop those different solutions, using as many common pieces as it can.
"""

That says to me that this group hasn't yet figured out a specific problem that they're solving. 

The inclusion of the "science fiction" use cases in the problem statement draft doesn't help either.  While the PSL-like cases all seem to hang together in terms of setting boundaries along hierarchical lines, the DMARC case envisions "domains that were somehow associated via a policy authority", which sounds like a facility for associating arbitrary things across the DNS.  Those two don't sound like part of the same WG to me.

I would like to have some discussion on the call of whether this is really properly scoped before we send it forth.
2015-01-21
00-01 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Block, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2015-01-21
00-01 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-01-21
00-01 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
Like others, I'd really rather see the additional background info removed (and indeed, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the main body could also …
[Ballot comment]
Like others, I'd really rather see the additional background info removed (and indeed, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the main body could also be removed). But if you insist on external review with it, I will not balk.
2015-01-21
00-01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2015-01-21
00-01 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the suggestion of removing the additional information section at the end. Add one sentence to the body of the charter …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with the suggestion of removing the additional information section at the end. Add one sentence to the body of the charter about the PSL if you want, but having that whole section in the charter seems unnecessary.
2015-01-21
00-01 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-01-21
00-01 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
The Secretariat should please include the Internet Directorate  in the external review distribution.  Thanks.

It is my intent to move the "additional background …
[Ballot comment]
The Secretariat should please include the Internet Directorate  in the external review distribution.  Thanks.

It is my intent to move the "additional background information" section to the working group wiki when the chartering is complete.  It remains here for now, to make it easier for reviewers.
2015-01-21
00-01 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2015-01-21
00-01 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
The Secretariat should please include the Internet Directorate  in the external review distribution.  Thanks.
2015-01-21
00-01 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2015-01-21
00-01 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
When this charter goes for external review, we should ensure that some DNS expertise gets involved in the review.  That can be accomplished …
[Ballot comment]
When this charter goes for external review, we should ensure that some DNS expertise gets involved in the review.  That can be accomplished by asking the Internet Directorate for an explicit review.
2015-01-21
00-01 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-01-21
00-01 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Well done for moving the additional information out of the main body of the charter text.

How about going one step further and …
[Ballot comment]
Well done for moving the additional information out of the main body of the charter text.

How about going one step further and deleting all of the "Additional Background Information"? I know it is always hard to delete text, but this discussion belongs in an I-D not here.
2015-01-21
00-01 Adrian Farrel Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel
2015-01-21
00-01 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Well done for moving the additional information out of the main body of the charter text.

How about going one step further and …
[Ballot comment]
Well done for moving the additional information out of the main body of the charter text.

How about going one step further and deleting all of the "Additional Background Information"? I know it is aways hard to delete text, but this discussion belongs in an I-D not here.
2015-01-21
00-01 Adrian Farrel Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel
2015-01-19
00-01 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-01-13
00-01 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I had one suggestion. This charter is fairly chatty (which is fine), including examples, but after reading it, I wasn't sure whether I'd …
[Ballot comment]
I had one suggestion. This charter is fairly chatty (which is fine), including examples, but after reading it, I wasn't sure whether I'd be able to tell whether ibm.com and ibm.co.uk were related.

I think the answer is "yes", but the charter might be clearer if it used an example like that.
2015-01-13
00-01 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-01-13
00-01 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-01-13
00-01 Barry Leiba WG action text was changed
2015-01-13
00-01 Barry Leiba WG review text was changed
2015-01-13
00-01 Barry Leiba Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2015-01-13
00-01 Barry Leiba State changed to Internal review from Informal IESG review
2015-01-07
00-01 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-01.txt
2015-01-06
00-00 Barry Leiba Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-01-22
2015-01-06
00-00 Barry Leiba Notification list changed to dbound@ietf.org
2015-01-06
00-00 Barry Leiba Initial review time expires 2015-01-13
2015-01-06
00-00 Barry Leiba State changed to Informal IESG review from Not currently under review
2015-01-06
00-00 Barry Leiba New version available: charter-ietf-dbound-00-00.txt