Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
Dan, See below On 3/24/14, 9:54 PM, Dan York wrote: Tim, I support these changes as they seem to be logical modifications to the charter, particularly given the closing of the DNSEXT wg. I personally don't know that DNSSEC needs to be added to point #5, as I do see it as a natural extension of DNS. However, I could see that for clarity for other people it might be useful. Perhaps just adding DNSSEC into the list of options would work such as: 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, DNSSEC, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. I can buy adding it, if it helps drive the point home. This will still go through some editing steps. Again, I don't know that this is 100% required, but it may be a simple change to help things be 100% clear to all. I agree with Warren that the wording of the last sentence of point #6 isn't clear, and thank you for your explanation, Tim. What about this? -- 6. Publish documents that address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then identify whether these issues should be addressed within DNSOP or within another appropriate working group. -- Or perhaps starting it differently: -- 6. Serve as a clearinghouse for DNS-related issues where people can bring drafts that document the problem space around DNS issues. The group will then decide whether those issues belong in DNSOP or will work with the authors and appropriate ADs to determine the appropriate group for the work. -- I like this second phrasing of yours, and have replaced my text with yours,. It sounds like you are trying to do something sort of like what the RAI area did with the DISPATCH working group where people could bring work ideas that related to real-time communications and that working group would dispatch the issues to the appropriate existing working group - or create a new working group to take on that new work.In the case of DISPATCH, that group exists solely to serve as this clearinghouse and is not chartered to perform specific work itself ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/charter/ ). This was *exactly* our idea when adding this item. I do not know if there is a specific need, but I do know we are approached regularly about drafts that involve DNS that wants anything from review to blessing. I believe we've been given some latitude to provide that function, and I believe DNSOP can perform this function, as long as things are handled in a timely manner, with clear disposition. In this case, it sounds like you are looking for this to be a *part* of what DNSOP is to be about. (And I can see that being a useful function as it is not clear where else someone would bring new DNS-related questions *except* to DNSOP.) Dan Thanks for these comments. I'll spin a new version adding all the things I've heard so far and send it out later today. tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
On 3/24/14, 1:48 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 3/19/14, 12:42 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. I fell like this is intended to allow work on issues related to the root/tld registration but without being explicit. I'm a little on the fence with respect to how explicit we want to but I think we should actually call it out. We were trying to be explicitly vague, or vaguely explicit. I was thinking we could say something like such as root/tld conflicts or namespace or application space conflicts. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
On 3/25/14, 8:39 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote: On 3/24/14, 1:48 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: On 3/19/14, 12:42 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. I fell like this is intended to allow work on issues related to the root/tld registration but without being explicit. I'm a little on the fence with respect to how explicit we want to but I think we should actually call it out. We were trying to be explicitly vague, or vaguely explicit. I was thinking we could say something like such as root/tld conflicts or namespace or application space conflicts. if I had to channel my other colleagues on the IESG it's probably important enough to warrant it's own bullet. I will ultimately get my own chance to whittle at the text so it's just a suggestion. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
Tim, I support these changes as they seem to be logical modifications to the charter, particularly given the closing of the DNSEXT wg. I personally don't know that DNSSEC needs to be added to point #5, as I do see it as a natural extension of DNS. However, I could see that for clarity for other people it might be useful. Perhaps just adding DNSSEC into the list of options would work such as: 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, DNSSEC, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. Again, I don't know that this is 100% required, but it may be a simple change to help things be 100% clear to all. I agree with Warren that the wording of the last sentence of point #6 isn't clear, and thank you for your explanation, Tim. What about this? -- 6. Publish documents that address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then identify whether these issues should be addressed within DNSOP or within another appropriate working group. -- Or perhaps starting it differently: -- 6. Serve as a clearinghouse for DNS-related issues where people can bring drafts that document the problem space around DNS issues. The group will then decide whether those issues belong in DNSOP or will work with the authors and appropriate ADs to determine the appropriate group for the work. -- It sounds like you are trying to do something sort of like what the RAI area did with the DISPATCH working group where people could bring work ideas that related to real-time communications and that working group would dispatch the issues to the appropriate existing working group - or create a new working group to take on that new work.In the case of DISPATCH, that group exists solely to serve as this clearinghouse and is not chartered to perform specific work itself ( http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/charter/ ). In this case, it sounds like you are looking for this to be a *part* of what DNSOP is to be about. (And I can see that being a useful function as it is not clear where else someone would bring new DNS-related questions *except* to DNSOP.) Dan On 3/19/14 3:42 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote: Hello This is a conversation I've scheduled a few times and I did poor time mangement. After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the DNSOP charter: --- 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. 6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. -- We welcome your feedback either on the items, the wording, or anything you wish to comment on. thanks tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
From: Warren Kumari Date: 2014-03-21 19:38 To: Tim Wicinski CC: joel jaeggli; dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote: Hello This is a conversation I've scheduled a few times and I did poor time mangement. After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the DNSOP charter: --- 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. Since DNSEXT closed down, this wording can help to solve the small issues related to extensions to the DNS Protocol if the issue is not big enough to create a new WG. Jiankang Yao___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote: Hello This is a conversation I've scheduled a few times and I did poor time mangement. After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the DNSOP charter: --- 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. 6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. Last sentence does not parse (and I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say, so unclear how to fix it). W -- We welcome your feedback either on the items, the wording, or anything you wish to comment on. thanks tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
On 3/21/14, 7:38 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote: 6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. Last sentence does not parse (and I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say, so unclear how to fix it). W Ooof. I obviously failed to incorporate the correct wording from my co-chair. What this sentence is trying to say is: The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. Is something like this: dnsop will take in drafts that revolve around DNS-related issues, and the group will discuss the problem space (via drafts) and decide: 1. should the solution space be addressed in dnsop? 2. If not, help decide where the work would be better carried out and work with the appropriate ADs on this. This still sounds horrible. tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
I am fine with these 2 items if DNS includes DNSSEC. Maybe replacing DNS by DNS or DNSSEC clarify this. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/21/14, 7:38 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote: 6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. Last sentence does not parse (and I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say, so unclear how to fix it). W Ooof. I obviously failed to incorporate the correct wording from my co-chair. What this sentence is trying to say is: The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. Is something like this: dnsop will take in drafts that revolve around DNS-related issues, and the group will discuss the problem space (via drafts) and decide: 1. should the solution space be addressed in dnsop? 2. If not, help decide where the work would be better carried out and work with the appropriate ADs on this. This still sounds horrible. tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Daniel Migault Orange Labs -- Security +33 6 70 72 69 58 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
On 3/21/14, 9:46 AM, Daniel Migault wrote: I am fine with these 2 items if DNS includes DNSSEC. Maybe replacing DNS by DNS or DNSSEC clarify this. Currently #2 of the charter states: 2. Publish documents concerning DNSSEC operational procedures. But I understand what you mean here, and I was thinking it was a logical extension. tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Tim Wicinski wrote: After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the DNSOP charter: --- 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. 6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. Those would be a good addition to the charter, and solve a problem that I have with some of my minor extensions drafts. I would support this. Paul ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Changes to Charter
Hello This is a conversation I've scheduled a few times and I did poor time mangement. After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the DNSOP charter: --- 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol, initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0 options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending DNS to support other applications. 6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the solution space. -- We welcome your feedback either on the items, the wording, or anything you wish to comment on. thanks tim ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
