On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > The current DNSOP charter was deliberately written > to be flexible in what we could work on. Normally an > IETF WG is chartered to perform a fairly tightly > constrained piece of work and then either re-charter > to an equally specific next work item, or shut down. > But part of the purpose of keeping DNSOP around > in a slightly more open-ended fashion was that the > community seemed to believe that major protocol > work on DNS was done, but there would still be > pressure to provide for small tweaks on the wire > and review Informational documents on > operational practice such as DNSSEC maintenance.
As Martin Hoffman has pointed out before, this looks very close to what SIP has faced before. They finally came up with a dispatch WG [RFC7957], and recently, Security Area also went in that direction. Is it something dnsop WG might also consider as a viable solution to the protocol complexity issue? | Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: xima...@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
