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 |