[dnsdir] draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-07 telechat Dnsdir review

Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 01 June 2026 19:21 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: dnsdir@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <178034171521.2089412.17350704086601310438@dt-datatracker-5b4c8598b5-4ztf9>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:21:55 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: YKDSROPKDJ5RXZKQSJOYRC7CZ5LZ34EK
CC: draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Reply-To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [dnsdir] draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-07 telechat Dnsdir review
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/nltZH-vGsX9rt28piKCsKfjLlAQ>

Document: draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf
Title: Community considerations on DNS WG structures at IETF
Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review result: Ready with Nits

DNSDIR review

I have performed a review of this draft as assigned by the DNS Directorate,
and these reviews are intended to pay close attention to aspects of the draft
that intersect with the DNS and its operation. While this document does not
talk about DNS specifics, it does discuss

I mostly have questions but I welcome any guidance.  Also, feel free to ignore
these comments.

Does this need to be an RFC? Can this be an IESG statement?  It seems like
pushing it a bit for this informational RFC, but I can never keep up with the
administrivia of the IESG/IETF.

If it is a RFC, it doesn't really have a statement of the problem other than
"handling the DNS work being conducted within the IETF". I think it's the
"vibes we all know what needs to be done".

A restructuring of the DNS related WGs would be a good thing. I don't think
anyone has claimed otherwise. But aren't there existing processes within the
IESG to propose and charter working groups?

If we do publish this as an RFC for something so specific that it won't be
beneficial to other working groups in similar situations on how to address the
problem.  I can see other busy groups run into this situation, and having some
IETF wide guidance would make it a more useful document.  Or again, is this
something which could come from the IESG?

My general feeling is that the IESG should have started on these steps without
waiting for this document.

[dnsdir] draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-07 telech… Tim Wicinski via Datatracker