IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dd] Charter - objectives and scope

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Fri, 22 March 2024 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.com>
X-Original-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579C8C14F61F for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gme_AmWdJ9Jr for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:24:29 -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 DCB4DC14F60D for <dd@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-8280.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.130.128]) (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 260352420E4A; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:24:25 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <ybly1ab6mm8.fsf@wx.hardakers.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:24:22 +0000
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, Ed Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>, "dd@ietf.org" <dd@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F7F1DAA4-A236-4C35-85C8-F283ECA8DB80@rfc1035.com>
References: <0521FB45-FC12-4297-8B17-41053137FF2E@icann.org> <CADyWQ+GendnRjNcjLdc0hObEf1a1ctvnDogL=BmSMLa33_4bjA@mail.gmail.com> <ybly1ab6mm8.fsf@wx.hardakers.net>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dd/LDxfui1jh0bkLrBPyMzUCu1l97g>
Subject: Re: [dd] Charter - objectives and scope
X-BeenThere: dd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Delegation <dd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dd>, <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dd>, <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:24:33 -0000


> On 22 Mar 2024, at 02:12, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
> 
> The way I phrased it in the updated charter was the requirement for including  Operational and Deployment considerations.  IE, we don't say positive or negative just that potential issues should be documented.  Do people find this insufficient?

How about “The WG will carry out an operational impact assessment” or something like that?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email