Hi Ted,

I think that it is this one (from the side meeting wiki):
Wednesday 9 November
Room: Richmond 6 - Wednesday

10:00
6761bis
Paul Hoffman (paul.hoff...@icann.org<mailto:paul.hoff...@icann.org>)
Discussion of the future of RFC 6761<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6761/> 
registry; for example, see 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfc6761bis/)
Zoom 
link<https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83413016917?pwd=UkVUc0ZtTzdjKzVKOUNzeUYvcVE3dz09>
 Meeting ID: 834 1301 6917, Passcode: test-onion

I presume that Paul will correct me if I’m pointing you to the wrong thing.

Regards,
Rob



From: Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com>
Sent: 07 November 2022 12:25
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org>; dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, 
again)

I haven't seen an announcement about this side meeting yet. Did I miss it?

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 2:21 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) 
<rwilton=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Replying here only because it is a convenient place in this thread, and 
definitely not with any hats on.

I think that a side meeting specifically to discuss how to progress RFC 6761bis 
at IETF 115 could be a good way forward.  I also note that the final agenda for 
IETF 115 is available and side meetings can be booked.

Personally, I'm less keen on either spinning up a separate WG to tackle this or 
going via the AD-sponsored path because it isn't obvious that an AD-sponsored 
bis document would gain IETF consensus when the chartered WG is unable to.

The other suggestion that I wanted to put out there is perhaps a small, 
dedicated design team within DNSOP set up by the chairs to work on this problem 
and collectively work on a solution draft that can then be brought back to the 
WG.  In my experience, sometimes issues that get stuck within a larger WG end 
up making more progress when worked on within a smaller team.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf 
> Of Paul Hoffman
> Sent: 04 October 2022 00:06
> To: Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net<mailto:war...@kumari.net>>
> Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org<mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes,
> again)
>
> On Oct 3, 2022, at 3:53 PM, Warren Kumari 
> <war...@kumari.net<mailto: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

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

Reply via email to