[dns-at-ietf] Re: Discussion: big groups vs small, focused groups

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

Petr Špaček <[e-mail]> writes:

Thanks Petr,

A quick follow on:

> Can we try do BCPs @ DNS-OARC for couple years and see how it goes?

[disclaimer: I'm a big fan of DNS-OARC generally, but the questions
below are really how to make this potentially work if this is the
direction chosen]

1. DNS-OARC doesn't yet have a publication stream at all, aside from a
blog, which can certainly be remedied by creating one.  Certainly it
fits within their current description under the "Information Sharing"
category.  My recollection is that occasionally (very rare) do have
"membership only" meeting slot; how would those potentially affect a
published BCP if they were related as that differs from the always-open
model of the IETF?

2. If DNS BCPs were to be written at DNS-OARC, then we may have to
reference external publications from our IETF streams at times.  This
already happens so seems possible.  But do you foresee any complications,
especially if we have cases of timing dependencies, or, worse, circular
dependencies that are handled right now through internal clustering?

3. How do we ensure enough IETF folk are participating in the external
body (which is membership driven though has open lists)?  Or do you feel
that operators are the ones to write BCP and thus protocol experts
aren't as needed?  (that wasn't intend to be as leading of a question as
it came out, but I'll leave it anyway)

4. How do we ensure DNS-OARC publications are widely recognized as
authoritative?  This is really a problem for all new bodies to widely
publicize their intent to create new authoritative streams, and isn't
really specific to OARC.

[5. I actually had one more but now I've forgotten it...]

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Google