Re: [dnsext] WG Review: Recharter of DNS Extensions (dnsext)

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Andrew, Bill,

Generally speaking I at least tend to use roughly the same bar for 
working group items and individual submissions via the AD. Both will be 
reviewed by the IETF, get a full IESG and directorate reviews, and may 
come with a label that shows the IETF recommends them (BCP or PS). Of 
course, there are various different types of documents and possible 
extensions. Experimental "someone's experimental extension of FOO" and 
informational ("thoughts on BAR") can be published more easily than 
standards ("the recommended way").

So I do agree with Andrew again that if some specific proposal is not 
interesting for the working group then its probably not interesting for 
the IETF as a whole either, and I probably would not sponsor it. And if 
there aren't N reviewers to look at a document, we can't really make a 
quality output anyway. Informational and Experimental have a lower bar 
in the sense that we do not have be so sure that they are the 
recommended approach for the Internet, but even they do require people 
to review the documents. However, I would like to point out we also have 
Independent submissions via the RFC Editor, which may sometimes be used 
to publish documents that the IETF does not take on.

Jari