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
