[Dawn] Re: A reworked draft charter for DAWN

[Hesham Moussa <[e-mail]>]

Hi again,

Few minor suggested edits to the charter. Already opened a PR https://github.com/danielkinguk/discovery/pull/60



  1.  Change 1:

“Discovery in the DAWN context is limited to being able to "find me an entity to talk to" within a collaborating organization. “

To

“Discovery in the DAWN context is limited to being able to "find me an entity to interact with" within collaborating organizations.”


  1.  Change 2:

“The WG will consider the DNS as a likely initial protocol upon which to build a discovery protocol.”

To

“The WG will consider existing solutions under IETF or other organizations (e.g., Linux foundation) that address DAWN problem space as initial starting point upon which discovery protocols would be built. ”


  1.  Change 3:

“The DAWN working group will seek to coordinate with other WGs and external standards bodies as necessary. These may include WIMSE, CORE, CATS, ITU-T SG17, 3GPP, and the Linux Foundation.”

To

“The DAWN working group will seek to coordinate with other WGs and external standards bodies as necessary. These may include WIMSE, CORE, CATS, DNS-related WGs, ITU-T SG17, 3GPP, and the Linux Foundation.”



Regards
Hesham



From: Hesham Moussa <hesham.moussa=[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 2:26 PM
To: Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Dawn] Re: A reworked draft charter for DAWN

Hi Wes and Adrian,

I have noticed that you have not included DNS working groups as part of the potential WGs that DAWN could coordinate with. Is there a reason?

Regards,
Hesham

From: Kehan Yao <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 12:11 PM
To: Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Hesham Moussa <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Dawn] Re: A reworked draft charter for DAWN

Hi Wes,
I agree with the perspectives you shared in your reply to Arashmid and support the idea of establishing a set of baseline preconditions to frame our problem scope, as this path gives us a clear and achievable implementation roadmap to move forward with at this stage.
After comparing the two charter drafts, I’ve noticed obvious differences in work pacing and several key adjustments to the deliverables. I’d really appreciate your thoughts on the points below (these are just gentle questions for discussion, not objections):
1.    1. The updated charter has removed multiple procedural documents. Among these, I’m a little confused about the removal of the information model deliverable. While taking it out does offer the working group more flexibility for future work, an information model is still quite useful for distinguishing discovery information across different types of entities.
2.    2. The revised charter explicitly adds a protocol specification as one deliverable. The -01 version contained a clause stating that extensions to existing IETF protocols need to be coordinated with the relevant owning working groups. Would it be appropriate to keep this wording within the revised charter?
3.    3. An architecture document is also listed as a deliverable in the updated charter, and DNS is mentioned as a likely candidate starting protocol. I have two follow-up questions here:
o   - With DNS proposed as the baseline starting point, does that imply we can move directly into protocol development based on a DNS-based architecture?
o   - If we need to formalize a complete extended discovery architecture for DAWN, would the architecture document be finalized prior to, or after the protocol specification work?
I also have a couple of minor clarifications regarding the Scope and Out of Scope sections for your reference:
#Scope
1.    - The current text reads “within a collaborating organization”. Shouldn't it be “within collaborating organizations” instead?
#Out of Scope
2.    - The DAWN terminology draft does not yet include a definition for “discovery server”. This term may refer to a component belonging to the architecture. Could we either rephrase the content to avoid referencing “discovery server”, or add a formal definition of this term to our terminology document later on?
Thanks so much for your guidance on these points.
Best regards,
Kehan

Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 于2026年6月23日周二 00:39写道：
Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> writes:

> It is not clear to me how DNS will serve as the starting point of the
> discovery process when agents submit queries specifying the skill sets
> they are looking for.

I think this discussion is highlighting a question that people need to
think about and answer carefully with respect to "how do we start upon
this problem space".

The question amounts to: given an agent trying to contact others, is the
expectation that it will have a starting point of other organizations it
least has a starting references to, or is the expectation that it is "I
know I need this skill, agent, etc but have have zero clue where to even
start"?  The second amounts to either a search engine or a global
registry (likely multiple, potentially conflicting, registries).

There is a significant difference is both the expected design and
approach to these two different situations, with the first looking a bit
easier to solve (hence "collaborating organizations" was put into
various versions of the draft charter).

Designing a system where an agent, with no starting information at all,
can find the resources it needs is a very different challenge.
Proponents believing this is where the WG should start will need to
clearly articulate to the IESG how this work looks achievable, as a true
bootstrap is very challenging.

If the bootstrap list includes at least "a list of resource search
engines to start with", then it looks very much like the first half of
the problem: a list of starting organizations to start with.

I'd certainly love to hear the opinions from everyone on where the
starting work of the WG should be, in a way that shows both the problem
is solvable, deployable, not too widely scoped, and all within a
reasonable period of time.  IMHO, this is what the IESG will be looking
for in order to approve a charter:  what is the clearly defined exact
problem, and what is the best known starting direction.

Note that if the starting problem looks more like "we need to spend a
lot of time defining and describing the problem, as even that is
unknown" then it begins to look more like a research group than an
engineering group.

[again, all IMHO]

--
Wes Hardaker
Google

_______________________________________________
Dawn mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>