On Oct 3, 2022, at 3:53 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > As the chairs’ email also said: > “We’re well aware not everyone is interested in this work and that the WG has > a chronic issue of a full pipeline of documents to consider.” A side meeting > to discuss the followup to RFC8244 may provide some energy to work on the > problem.
The chairs' message did not talk about "the followup to RFC8244". When I volunteered to set up the side meeting, I assumed it was about RFC 6761. I do not see any reason to follow up on the comprehensive list in RFC 8244; it stands well on its own. > It is very unclear that a different WG would attract sufficient mass - yes, > many people in DNSOP are tired of this topic, but it is clearly an important > topic (and in the DNSOP charter), and moving it off to a group where it > doesn’t get the required review is not helpful. The logic here concerns me. If a different WG cannot attract sufficient mass, discussing it in DNSOP with that same insufficient mass wastes many more people's time. An insufficient mass is a strong indicator that something cannot reach IETF consensus; that is important information. The fact that it is currently in the DNSOP charter is not terribly relevant: it was put there when we were young and hopeful. We then let it fester in the denial zone, mouldering until (ed: stop with the gross imagery!)... --Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
