[jig] the note on the IETF Problem Statement on Aliased names

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have been a slacker lately in terms of the draft note I was supposed to write 
up for the JIG WG to use as base to create a letter asking for the IETF to wait 
before taking the Problem Statement: DNS Resolution of Aliased Names  
(draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing-requirements-01.txt) to WG last call (WGLC).  But 
trust me, I have been feeling guilty about it.

This evening I decided to do some work on it and noticed that the draft is a 
few day away from expiring (15 September).  I have not had a chance to talk to 
Suzanne about her plans to update it, and don't know if she has had a chance to 
do anything with the comments that have been made here in the past.

Also Andrew Sullivan, a co-chair of the dnsext WG is one of the specialists 
working with the VIP teams, so he knows about the work ICANN is doing.

At this point, I am no longer convinced that we need to send a note.  That, 
however, would be the way a slacker would approach a task they wanted to avoid. 
I would prefer to avoid taking any that would solidify such a reputation for 
myself.  So even though I no longer think a note is really needed at this 
point,  here is the start of a such a note:

----

The ICANN Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN WG (JIG WG) has had an opportunity to review  
"Problem Statement: DNS Resolution of Aliased Names"  
(draft-ietf-dnsext-aliasing-requirements-01.txt) and has had a chance to talk 
to one of the co-authors, Suzanne Woolf, about the draft.  The WG appreciated 
the time Suzanne was able to give us and looks forward to a future version of 
the draft that responds to some of the issues that were brought in our 
conversations.  The JIG WG believes this is an important draft and hopes to see 
work on it continued.

During the conversations on the draft, it was brought up that the dnsext WG was 
getting ready for Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on the draft.  The  JIG WG 
wishes to express concern about moving to WGLC at this point.  While some of 
our comments could be dealt with in a -02 draft, one part of the document, the 
examples that are part of the Problem Statement, need to be developed further.  
The JIG WG believes that the work currently being done in the Variant Issue 
Project (VIP) at ICANN could contribute greatly to developing the problem 
statement to the point where it would adequately express the problem as seen 
from the ICANN perspective.

The WG does not suggest that IETF needs to wait until such time as the VIP 
group completes it work and formally publishes and approves its final report.  
On the other had we know that several experts from the IETF are involved with 
that project and would like any IETF dnsext WGLC to be delayed until such time 
as there is sufficient agreement within that project to adequate express the 
Variant issue as understood from the ICANN perspective.

In concluding we appreciate the opportunity for the IETF and ICANN to work 
together on making sure this problem statement becomes an Informational RFC 
that represents the problem accurately.

----

Just a start, please feel free to through stones at it.


avri