On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> DNSOP needs
>> to broaden its charter, or we need to revive some kind of DNSEXT group.
>
> We would need to find some volunteers to act as co-chair. I don't think
> adding the work to the DNSOP charter is the right thing to do, although I am
> not wedded to that position. I just suspect that (a) it will make life in
> DNSOP harder and (b) we will get better review in an intarea working group.
> But that's a fairly artificial point to be making, so argue away! :)
I think recreating DNS WG is a bad idea.
We have a few ideas on the table in various that are related to
a) DNS transport TCP, SCTP, "tree answer: give me all records need to
answer/validate X starting from point above X",
Zone transfer improvements
aa) DNS "privacy" ie. channel encryption/authentication
b) Operational Automation
c) Keeping noise out of DNS (AS112) and name spaces/meta-tld/alt TLD.
d) New protocols adopting DANE
e) Name server control protocols
a) and aa) should have its own short term WG
b) Belongs in DNSOP
c) is above DNSEXT and DNSOP wg it is more of an intersection of many different
areas like RAI, APPS,
OPS and SECURITY ==> a special WG
d) DANE WG is handling that
d) Domain boundaries BOF may turn into a WG.
e) Belongs in DNSOP
So Yes I see a need for a focused DNS protocol wg at this time.
The problem with long lived groups is you never know when new useful work will
show up,
killing groups or just the threat of killing a WG seems to bring out
innovation.
Olafur
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
