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
