Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter

[Peter Koch <[e-mail]>]

Dean,

> > 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 fact that name servers dealing with a certain level in the DNS hierarchy or
with certain parts of the DNS tree are not or are no longer explicitly mentioned
does not imply that they could not taken into special consideration where
appropriate.

> 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

IETF Liaisons are appointed by and report to the IAB.  There is an IAB
statement regarding the IETF's Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors at
<hFrom [e-mail]  Thu Mar 13 21:08:44 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922283A6CD8;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.383
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451,
	HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 61V7g6xjnWjN; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDEF3A6866;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33AE3A6866
	for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id rCfDVZO4ZpBT for <[e-mail]>;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE05D3A67EA
	for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x27.adm.denic.de ([10.122.64.128])
	by office.denic.de with esmtp 
	id 1Ja1BT-0004nD-Ow; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:06:19 +0100
Received: from localhost by x27.adm.denic.de with local 
	id 1Ja1BL-0002Zz-DF; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:06:11 +0100
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:06:11 +0100
From: Peter Koch <[e-mail]>
To: Dean Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Draft Charter
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Dean,

> > 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 fact that name servers dealing with a certain level in the DNS hierarchy or
with certain parts of the DNS tree are not or are no longer explicitly mentioned
does not imply that they could not taken into special consideration where
appropriate.

> 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

IETF Liaisons are appointed by and report to the IAB.  There is an IAB
statement regarding the IETF's Liaison to the ICANN Board of Directors at
<http://www.iab.org/liaisons/icann/icann-liaison.html>.  Neither DNSOP nor
any other IETF WG is mentioned there and is at the sole discretion of the
IAB to consult with IETF WGs in its (the IAB's) role of assisting the
Liaison in executing their duties.  I asked you to provide tangible reference
(i.e. "chapter and verse") to support your view of DNSOP having a special
role w.r.t. root server operations.  I fail to see this information having
been provided.  Also, there was no support of your view. Therefore I consider
this issue closed.

> 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.

The sad fact is that me dropped the ball on the charter work.

> > 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?

The general clause

  The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review guidelines
  for the correct, efficient and secure configuration, administration, and
  operation of DNS authoritative servers, resolvers, and DNSSEC validators.

would certainly cover this.

-Peter [with hat]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


ttp://www.iab.org/liaisons/icann/icann-liaison.html>.  Neither DNSOP nor
any other IETF WG is mentioned there and is at the sole discretion of the
IAB to consult with IETF WGs in its (the IAB's) role of assisting the
Liaison in executing their duties.  I asked you to provide tangible reference
(i.e. "chapter and verse") to support your view of DNSOP having a special
role w.r.t. root server operations.  I fail to see this information having
been provided.  Also, there was no support of your view. Therefore I consider
this issue closed.

> 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.

The sad fact is that me dropped the ball on the charter work.

> > 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?

The general clause

  The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review guidelines
  for the correct, efficient and secure configuration, administration, and
  operation of DNS authoritative servers, resolvers, and DNSSEC validators.

would certainly cover this.

-Peter [with hat]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop