Note this discussion has started to split into (at least) two: cleaning up the 
DNS standard (protocol, documents, or both), possibly in a new WG; and 
whether/how the existing DNSOP WG needs to adjust its efforts. 

> On Mar 27, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suzanne,
> 
>> If the WG feels that the previous view of how DNSOP should work has been 
>> overtaken by events, we can certainly work with our Area Director (hi 
>> Warren!) on a revised charter.
> 
> 
> I strongly believe that any work on cleaning up DNS protocol and/or rewriting 
> RFC1034/RFC1035 and associated document would need a new WG with tightly 
> defined charter.
> 
> Hence, I will not request or I won’t support adopting my 
> deprecating-obsolete-rr-types as a WG document - it might become one of the 
> first documents for new WG, or it might end up as individual submission. 
> While this work might be considered as “protocol maintenance”, I think it is 
> bigger then simple protocol maintenance.
> 
> Again, from experience from dnsext, I would strongly suggest that any work in 
> this area is split into CHANGE documents and REWRITE documents, with strict 
> scope. Documents rewriting existing RFCs while adding more stuff at the same 
> time tend to not reach the finish line.

This all makes sense to me. 

I have no opinion (yet) on what the desired output should be (some new RFCs? A 
reference implementation/RFC set? Something else?), but agree it doesn’t fit 
DNSOP.

Personally I think it’s within charter for DNSOP to facilitate this discussion, 
permit it to stay on the WG mailing list, etc. while people work out how they 
want to approach it, in substance and process. For instance, DNSOP helped get 
DPRIVE going by having a session at an IETF meeting on the DPRIVE drafts and 
adopting one of them (QNAME minimization). The important thing should be 
whether there’s an identifiable work item and whether the will exists to get it 
done, not how to charter a WG or otherwise work the process machinery. There 
are quite a few DNSOP (and IETF) regulars who are current or past WG chairs, 
ADs, and document editors, with experience of making the IETF machinery turn, 
who would be happy to advise proponents. This includes the current DNSOP chairs 
and AD.

I do have to say I support the warnings about getting bits committed to 
documents (and possibly code). As another anecdote to add to the stack, I 
remember (as I assume Paul Vixie, Matt Larson, Rob Austein, Ed Lewis, and Roy 
Arends do) the effort it took to get the DNSSEC RFCs done: a series of interop 
workshops, a couple of open source companies sponsoring development in 
well-known code bases, and money to support production of both code and 
documents. Resources committed as an afterthought were not getting it done. 

This is a different project, and I think it’s doable, but it’s not a weekend 
undertaking. 



Suzanne


_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to