[dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: how do we decide when a carefully chartered, narrow WG is needed

Philip Homburg <pch-dns-at-ietf@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 11 November 2025 08:01 UTC

Message-Id: <m1vIjJm-0000NGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: dns-at-ietf@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-dns-at-ietf@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b55F8B228@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:32:08 -0800 ." <yblo6p9ihvr.fsf@wd.hardakers.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 09:01:33 +0100
Message-ID-Hash: YATNJYK7WMZ4K5PUCDELNKKPJA25YYIW
CC: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Precedence: list
Subject: [dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: how do we decide when a carefully chartered, narrow WG is needed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-at-ietf/bjZI3yeMfdxcW2Qs9QR8BdmwMpw>

> How should the IETF (and thus IESG) decide when a new WG is needed
> (e.g. include but are not limited to deleg, add, and dprive), vs
> adopting a draft in an existing group?
> 
> - Should it be based on expected time to accomplish a goal?
> - Should it be based on the level of effort required?
> - Should it be based on the amount of discussion time that is expected?
> - Should it be based on the complexity of the problem to be solved?

I think a new WG needs to get a slot in IETF meetings, otherwise it is not
a WG but a mailing list.

This suggests that the primary deciding factor should be the discussion time.
Discussion time could be affected by the level of effort required or the
complexity of the problem.

[dns-at-ietf] Discussion: how do we decide when a… Wes Hardaker
[dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: how do we decide wh… Philip Homburg
[dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: how do we decide wh… Petr Špaček
[dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: how do we decide wh… Suzanne Woolf