Hi there all, At the recent RIPE 92 meeting the IAB presented on "Bridging IETF and RIPE - From Standards to Operations and back". Part of the feedback was that we should share more targeted information, for example that a list of newly adopted drafts and published RFCs. A primary purpose of this is incase you see a newly adopted draft where you feel that you might be able and willing to provide feedback and operational insight. This is a trial run of this process - it's newly published RFCs and adopted drafts in DNS groups. Please let me know if it's actually interesting / of use to you, and I'll see about making it better. I realize that this is just a list of draft names and titles - I had considered also adding the draft abstracts, but that would have made this super long and hard to read… Because this is the first time I'm starting from Jan 1st - if this is useful, future ones would be much shorter… Feedback (including "No, this is just clutter!!!") welcome, W Operations and Management AreaDomain Name System Operations (dnsop) <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/about/> adopted drafts since 2026-01-01: - draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via-ddns: Automating DNS Delegation Management via DDNS <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via-ddns/> - draft-ietf-dnsop-delext: DNS Protocol Modifications for Delegation Extensions <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-delext/> - draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-keyrestore: DNSSEC Key Restore <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-keyrestore/> - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc9364bis: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc9364bis/>
hi warren, i understand, support, and admire your intent and your persistent effort. i wish i had your stamina. but the ietf has spent years telling operators how important the ietf is while treating ops as second class citizens inside the ietf[0]. i sympathise that the latter is much harder to address than the former; welcome to late stage capitalism. and i confess to having given up. but i can not resist two comments on the former, dns tech content o the ietf is not an unknown. the nerdy ripe dns wg members already follow the ietf dns documents; though some at a safe distance :). the issue may be more how to make it efficient and productive to engage. when being a standards professional is not one's dayjob, efficiency is key. o your message focuses on the deleg effort to boil the ocean yet omits the only (to me) deeply interesting work, that of johan stenstam et alia on multi-provider dns[1]. this is something dns operators actually need! randy --- [0] https://archive.psg.com/051000.ccr-ivtf.html [1] https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/56/contributions/1223/
On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 1:50 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
hi warren,
i understand, support, and admire your intent and your persistent effort. i wish i had your stamina.
but the ietf has spent years telling operators how important the ietf is while treating ops as second class citizens inside the ietf[0]. i sympathise that the latter is much harder to address than the former; welcome to late stage capitalism. and i confess to having given up.
but i can not resist two comments on the former, dns tech content
o the ietf is not an unknown. the nerdy ripe dns wg members already follow the ietf dns documents; though some at a safe distance :). the issue may be more how to make it efficient and productive to engage. when being a standards professional is not one's dayjob, efficiency is key.
o your message focuses on the deleg effort to boil the ocean yet omits the only (to me) deeply interesting work
My message was not intended to cover or rate what DNSOP (and ADD and DPRIVE and…) are working on - it was just a list of the adopted documents and published RFCs from those groups (and it seems that only DNSOP has adopted or published since Jan 1st). A better example is probably https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/thread/TCK24JJ2XT... , which is the same thing but for the routing area. , that of johan stenstam et alia on multi-provider dns[1]. this is
something dns operators actually need!
Yup, fully agree. W
randy
---
[0] https://archive.psg.com/051000.ccr-ivtf.html [1] https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/56/contributions/1223/
Hi Warren, On 5/31/26 20:59, Warren Kumari wrote:
My message was not intended to cover or rate what DNSOP (and ADD and DPRIVE and…) are working on - it was just a list of the adopted documents and published RFCs from those groups
I think you missed that a few days before your message (May 26), DNSOP published an RFC: RFC 9975: Clarifications on CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC Consistency https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9975/ While at it, draft-ietf-dnsop-ds-automation on "Operational Recommendations for DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Automation" was sent to the RFC Editor in May as well. (Not sure if finalized but not yet published work products should be part of your list or not.) Best, Peter
On 31 May 2026, at 02:02, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
At the recent RIPE 92 meeting the IAB presented on "Bridging IETF and RIPE - From Standards to Operations and back".
Part of the feedback was that we should share more targeted information, for example that a list of newly adopted drafts and published RFCs. A primary purpose of this is incase you see a newly adopted draft where you feel that you might be able and willing to provide feedback and operational insight.
This is a trial run of this process - it's newly published RFCs and adopted drafts in DNS groups. Please let me know if it's actually interesting / of use to you, and I'll see about making it better.
Thanks Warren. I welcome this initiative. It's long overdue. :-) Though I think it may need some tweaking after it's been tested a few times. Let's try it out and see how things unfold. I have a few comments/observations. 1) Back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I co-chaired the WG, we used to have an IETF report as part of the agenda. The WG decided they didn't want that. So it got dropped. Maybe attitudes have changed since then and it's time to try again? The WG's demographic today is certainly different from what it was in the era when BIND was pretty much the only game in town. OTOH there's much more pressure on WG slots and agenda time nowadays => postings to the WG mailing list might be the most pragmatic approach. 2) Improved communication between RIPE (or other operator fora?) and the IETF would be a very good thing and I'm grateful you and your colleagues are trying to make that happen. However I think this needs to go further than DNS. So perhaps start with DNS and build out from there. There are plenty of other topics at the IETF that should attract interest and even input from operators: routing, IoT, security, web, QUIC, etc. How about having an IETF report, say in the RIPE's community plenary, which summarises the latest developments? Who knows, maybe there could also be a similar update on what's happening at ICANN and IANA? 3) A sustained presence from the IETF leadership at RIPE meetings - and NANOG, APRICOT, etc? - would obviously help improve the interactions between these organisations. This needn't always be through formally scheduled agenda slots/BoFs or side meetings, though clearly these would help a lot. Opportunities for hallway conversations over beer or coffee with an AD (say) could also help move things in the right direction. I realise that could be difficult because ADs and IAB members are volunteers => there are limits on the goodwill and support from their employers.
Hi Warren!
At the recent RIPE 92 meeting the IAB presented on "Bridging IETF and RIPE - From Standards to Operations and back".
Part of the feedback was that we should share more targeted information, for example that a list of newly adopted drafts and published RFCs. A primary purpose of this is incase you see a newly adopted draft where you feel that you might be able and willing to provide feedback and operational insight.
As I was one of the vocal participants, and I was one of the people suggesting interacting with the working groups directly, I am extremely happy to see this now happening! Thank you, I think this is the beginning of the road to better cooperation. Cheers! Sander
participants (5)
-
Jim Reid -
Peter Thomassen -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Warren Kumari