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

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

> 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?

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. Famous last words...

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

> 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. 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.