[DNSOP] Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on charter-ietf-dnsop-04-00: (with COMMENT)

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

> On 24 Jun 2025, at 11:04, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ** What DNS topics are out of scope in the WG?  As framed, it appears that
> nearly everything related to the “DNS protocol” would be in scope – BCPs for
> “DNS protocols (Sentence 1), documents from DNS operators (Sentence 2), and
> “maintenance, updates, and extensions to the DNS protocol” (Sentence 3).
> 
> In what way is this scope different than DPRIVE, DELEG, or DNSSD that are also
> defining elements of the "DNS protocol"?

Those WGs each have a narrowly defined scope Roman. The dnsop WG is (for now at least), the IETF home for just about anything else that's DNS related. I suppose the new charter could include text which says it won't tread on the toes of those WGs. Though since that's just a statement of the bleedin' obvious...

> ** Per “DNSOP provides a venue for DNS operators and other interested parties
> to engage in discussions around the operational requirements of DNS and publish
> documents”, what kind of documents are being published?

I-Ds and RFCs. Worst case, I suppose the WG might generate the occasional Liaison Statement though AFAIK it's never done that.

> ** Without specificity, isn’t this statement of “The WG will engage with
> relevant WGs and other appropriate organizations whenever collaboration is
> needed” true for any WG.  How does this shape the behavior of the WG?  Can it
> be more specific?

It's not clear how being more specific would help. It may well be counter-productive. DNS organisations outside the IETF come and go all the time. IMO it would not be helpful to enumerate these => rechartering every time a new one emerges or another goes away. Any collaboration is likely to be "That's an interesting idea you've got there. Please write up an I-D and bring it to the WG." or "can the WG provide clue?". This sort of thing doesn't need to go in the charter text: ie just say collaborate and don't get bogged down in the detail of what that might (not) be in practice.

I think the behaviour of the WG is unlikely to be influenced by collaboration with the likes of (say) ICANN or DNS-OARC. Besides, there's quite a lot of overlap in participants between them. In my experience it's mostly the same people talking about the same DNS-related stuff, albeit in different fora.