[dd] IAB BoF report: Deleg

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi IESG, hi all,

The delegation BoF went very smoothly and was well prepared and run. It seems, other than potentially expected, that most people in the room were generally positive about the work and there is quite broad interest on contributing to the work. 

The session started with some short statements on reasons why better delegation is needed. While people were generally positive about doing work in this space, a couple of people however also raised concerns about unintended consequences of the deployment as potentially performance degradation. Therefore it was seen, at least by some people in the room, as critical to reach out to registrars and other people in the ecosystem that are interested in deploying or may be impacted by the deployment. Another concern raised was about backward compatibility.

The largest part of the session was spend on discussing the proposed charter text and scope. This led to a couple of needed changes and there might still be some open questions mostly about the broadness of the scope. While some people in the group thought this work would create a new model for DNS, others see the proposed work rather as a small extension and preferred a tight focus. DBOUND was discussed as a failure, that should not be repeated, as the scope was too broad. Specifically, the charter proposes to focus on one use case first, however, it was not fully clear if everybody in the room agreed to which one should be picked first, however there is quite broad interest in singling protocol support especially for encrypted protocol (but not potentially not only). The discussion was a bit mixed between high-level considerations, like the notion of a new model with broad impact on DNS, and very detailed word-smithing level comments.

The discussion about deliverables indicated that the documents and question of which document should be published with consensus needs further clarification. Specifically there was discussion about the requirements, as well as if use cases, the new model and deployment consideration should be included and worked on first. Potentially additional technical deliverables might be needed as well or at least the scope and split of the proposed deliverables wasn’t fully clear in the proposed charter text. Some people will send proposals to the list but it is not fully clear if there is a common view between those interested in the work (yet).

At their end there was some time to discuss the BoF questions. Rather can asking the question, there were comments at the mic line that summarised that it became clear from the room discussion that there is a problem to solve and there is interest. Given there was more time, based on my request, the BoF question "Is the scope discussed today clear enough to ask the IESG for a WG?" was asked and let to a non-conclusive result (28 Yes, 21 No, 10 No Opinion). Therefore the chairs ask second question talking into account that more work on the proposed charter is needed which was answered positively ("Do you think we can work on the ML to get a scope that is clear enough?" 45 Yes, 1 No, 2 no opinion). My conclusion from that is that most/all people in the room were interested and positive about the work but there are different views about how broad the work should be chartered, from developing a new model for DNS to focus on one use case only with a small extension. However, given the very constructive and well guided discussion in the room, I believe this can be resolved by mailing list discussion.

Mirja