IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Wed, 09 October 2019 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B06B12084F for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id flv-dKmlghV3 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19146120043 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9368B2420FDE; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 21:46:59 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910091611240.11081@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 22:46:58 +0100
Cc: add@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A904161A-1B02-4A9E-8AA2-D2CC0FEA6A07@rfc1035.com>
References: <CALaySJLxXVuHQNfTnaeKZ_R9xtBYWfbta+A1bWcE-ZQZwd3VZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMkAFZW9mWjw92v+OR0Fa8ed+P80yc78eY07hCpsCNY6Q@mail.gmail.com> <1556423899.28427.1570640191209@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com> <CABcZeBNyRDqnVL68aXny=Ht69NjahmS4zRsnYizO53M--rhM5g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910091313590.2297@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAFpG3gch-mgJJMO1rEg61PhYNKeKYiJwz4NTQ3QDbEb=WNkyQw@mail.gmail.com> <D6D4836A-C426-491D-AAC4-D1F3323D6AB8@rfc1035.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910091611240.11081@bofh.nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/mxSKmC2ei9a-liE3MW4QazkCHsg>
Subject: Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:47:03 -0000


> On 9 Oct 2019, at 21:24, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> 
> It is relevant, because if we believe the only thing that is needed is
> a DHCP option, then we do not need to spin up a working group.

Well the draft charter says:

Specific initial areas of focus include but are not limited to:

- Resolver discovery and selection
- Expression of resolver policy
- Support for split-horizon DNS environments
- Mechanisms to facilitate testing of new configurations

Only the first item on that list looks is if it could somehow touch on DHCP. And even then it might only have an impact on DHCP if the current discovery draft in the doh WG fails to deliver. So no, a DHCP option is not the only thing that’s needed IMO.

I would also hope we can agree to take an objective, evidence-based approach rather than one which is based on subjective matters of belief.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email