Re: [Danish] Proposed WG Charter

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On 13 Jun 2021, at 16:04, Michael Richardson wrote:

> I see this as a sticking point.
> Those who like DNSSEC will dislike working around it.
> Those who think DNSSEC will never sail will use this to sink it.

If the charter of this WG is to sink DNSSEC, that needs to be stated 
explicitly in the charter, and then say why this work should not be in 
other PKI-based WGs.

>     > I think the charter should go some way to clarifying the 
> intended use
>     > cases.
>
> I think that's actually more than a charter should say.

I could not disagree more strongly.

> The charter needs to specific enough to tell people if they are 
> interested in
> the problem, and motivate them enough to read a use case document.

Charters are not documents to attract participants, they are 
descriptions of intended work. Given that this thread has brought out 
some significant disagreements on the use cases, the listing of use 
cases is all that much more imperative.

--Paul Hoffman