Re: [DNSOP] meta issue: WG to discuss DNS innovation (was Re: draft-hzhwm-start-tls-for-dns-00)

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

On 2/15/14, 9:04 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> [perpass dropped from ccs]
>
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> At ietf87 it was planned to  have a discussion at dnsop about this
>> continued problem of drafts that fall between operations and extensions
>> and the fact that dnsext closed down. Nothing happened at ietf87 or
>> ietf88. I hope to see this as agenda item for dnsop this meeting.
>>
>> We need a WG to discuss DNS innovation.
> At the Vancouver DNSOP meeting when there was some discussion I thought was protocol development related, I got up to the mike asked if DNSOP was the right place for that discussion, being righteously indignant that DNSOP would discuss something non-operational.  However, after sitting down someone pointed out to me that one of the common recurrent complaints about the IETF is that operators tend to get excluded and that maybe DNSOP is actually the best place to discuss DNS protocol development since that's where operators go.
>
> Perhaps DNSOP actually is the DNS innovation WG (if perhaps only as a seeding ground)?
>
>
As the co-chair or DNSOP who took this rather liberal view of our 
charter, I attempted to use the focus be the 'operational impacts' of 
several of the proposals, such at Mr. Wouter's too on tcp keepalives and 
query chaining.  I do believe it was the right thing to do, and I 
continue to do so.  We had great discussion on the topic and while 
nothing could be agreed on, there was some solid advice to take back on 
the issues.

One of the things we've been discussing internally (and have been 
negligent in bringing forward to the group) with our glorious ADs is 
expanding the charter.

tim