Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 09/10/2019 09:41, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2019, at 08:51, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> I see two main problems:
>> 
>> 1) What is out of scope? The current text seems to leave everything
>> related to DNS privacy and it's impacts as being in scope.
> 
> What aspects of DNS privacy should be out of scope for the proposed
> WG?

Based on the current text, I don't know. If we are going
to have N WGs in this space, it seems important that we
have clarity as to the scope of those.

> 
> At first glance, the proposed charter looks fine.
> 
> I accept a broadly scoped WG could be awkward. Though what’s being
> proposed here seems reasonably well scoped. If the WG has strong
> leadership and everyone uses common sense, I think it would work.

I wonder if common sense and WG chairs are enough to
deal with the different perspectives/interests here.

> Famous last words...

Indeed.

> BTW, it’s “its impact”. Yes, I need to resign from the apostrophe
> police and get out more. :-)

Oops. I depend on you to keep on keeping on improving me:-)

> 
>> 2) "This working group will coordinate with the DNSOP (OPS Area),
>> DPRIVE (INT Area), and DOH (ART area) working groups,..." seems to
>> me to mean that the confusion with proposals and discussions we've
>> seen will continue. Moving from 3 WGs and a non-WG list, to 4 WGs,
>> doesn't seem likely to help that aspect. For a specific example
>> DPRIVE is already working on a BCP that would likely overlap with
>> one of the initial focus areas listed here. That makes no sense to
>> me.
> 
> One possibility for dealing with this overlap could be for the new WG
> to look at the deployment and operational considerations surrounding
> whatever DNS-privacy-friendly technologies emerge from DPRIVE. 

Meaning it wouldn't develop any new protocol? Not sure
that'd work.

> I
> suppose that could mean the BCP that’s under development moves to the
> new WG.
> 
> One meta-question: would ABCD be in the art area? I think ops might
> be a better home for it.

That's one for the IESG. I suspect the right answer will be
fairly obvious or a "doesn't matter" if/when there's a final
charter. If that is not the case, then I'd really wonder if
the charter is the right one.

Cheers,
S.


> 
>