I would appreciate it if this could also not collide with dnssd or snac. Thanks for doing this!
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 4:59 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
