Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Peter Koch wrote:

> Dean,
> 
> > So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?  
> 
> to the extent that is has never been there, yes.
> 
> > It used to be the first item.  This appears to affect ISOC IETF
> > commitments to ICANN to provide this technical role.
> 
> If you could support this observation by tangible textual reference, that would
> be appreciated. As a side note, there is an IETF liaison to ICANN, independent
> of whatever WG charter.

I'm not sure what you mean to dispute. The text of the charter I quoted
cites "This will include root zone name servers, gTLD name servers
[...]" I don't think it can be made plainer.

The liason role is communicative; the liason communicates the consensus
of (in this case) DNSOP.  The person of liason has not previously been
the sole technical expert provided by the IETF. But if that becomes so,
this isn't what is described in the MoU.  The IETF technical expertise
is the combined contributions of its members through consensus and broad
industry support.  The liason cannot represent a non-existant consensus.  
If there is merely one person (the liason) then the value of that
opinion is also reduced, as there is no genuine industry consensus in
the opinion of just one person.

> > 1. Define the processes by which Domain Name System (DNS) software
> >       may be efficiently and correctly administered, configured, and
> >       operated on Internet networks. This will include root zone
> >       name servers, gTLD name servers, name servers for other DNS
> >       zones, iterative DNS resolvers, and recursive DNS resolvers.
> 
> My recollection of the previous discussion of this exact issue is that
> people were in favour of not mentioning any particular systems in the
> hierarchy especially to avoid the perception conveyed above.

People in favor of changing the charter indeed held the position you
describe. But my recollection is that the charter wasn't changed; those
people didn't have a consensus to change the charter that way at that 
time.

> Note however, that the charter as proposed would _not_ prevent the
> DNSOP WG from, say, updating RFC 2870.

Under what provision of the new charter would RFC 2870 fall under?

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop