On Oct 2, 2022, at 7:32 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > This topic came up at the last IESG telechat, partially in response to Paul > Hoffman’s https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis/ and my > concerns about the infinite amount of time this issue has cost and is still > costing dnsop at the expense of protocol work. > > The IESG concluded that those willing to resolve the 6761 issues should > conduct a side meeting at IETF 115 and consider further steps.
I'm happy to schedule that once the page for side meeting scheduling is open. (Note to DNSOP folks: there will likely be a side-meeting on DBOUND as well; I'll make sure the two don't collide.) > I also believe a side meeting and possibly a bof and working group dedicated > to this work would be better. At least that way, DNSOP can continue doing DNS > protocol work. This feels right to me as well. This WG does much better with processing and finishing actual protocol work than it does on work such as 6761bis. > Reviving it for another round in dnsop seems wrong. Strong +1. The discussion about removing it from the DNSOP WG charter will take *much* less time than us failing (yes, again) at resolving the issue here. --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
