IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: [Int-area] draft charter for new DNS WG

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Tue, 03 November 2026 10:22 UTC

Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:4b8::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2FEE47; Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:22:58 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mx.ietf.org; dkim=none; spf=pass (mx.ietf.org: domain of jim@rfc1035.com designates 2a00:1098:4b8::1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jim@rfc1035.com; dmarc=none
Received: from smtpclient.apple (gromit.rfc1035.com [IPv6:2a00:a600:60a:1::169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC43C260E79; Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:22:57 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81.1.10\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BAQzo58kbcbGwistDkw4mxrDVj3KZxY-gqNcxXuGg4kh2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:22:57 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3BB5B46F-32E8-446C-8A0F-FFDCAF9DE8F9@rfc1035.com>
References: <D8883F08-769B-4218-B96A-E74D2F9F4E9F@rfc1035.com> <D8DB8CB6-4E48-4F8F-A54C-69F21FCEBD7E@gmail.com> <1E4903D6-B10D-495B-97B2-66FB3916BC77@rfc1035.com> <CAFU7BAQzo58kbcbGwistDkw4mxrDVj3KZxY-gqNcxXuGg4kh2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.700.81.1.10)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (shaun.rfc1035.com); Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:22:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spamd-Bar: -------------------
Message-ID-Hash: QRY34LBQOKT7RIPACY7EHLTJMWAMIKOG
X-Message-ID-Hash: QRY34LBQOKT7RIPACY7EHLTJMWAMIKOG
X-MailFrom: jim@rfc1035.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Working Group DNSOP <dnsop@ietf.org>, int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [Int-area] draft charter for new DNS WG
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/g0r7CH5mAqS_Uju90oQYM0WDsaE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>


> On 2 Nov 2026, at 17:36, Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Who are "other appropriate organizations” mean?  Citing some examples would be good.
>> 
>> I had in mind the likes of ICANN, DNS-OARC, CENTR and the DNS-related WGs in RIR-land. There are sure to be others. Compiling these sorts of shopping lists and adding them to a charter is a bad idea IMO. Updating a shopping list will mean rewriting the WG charter. Let's not go down that rathole.
> 
> Not if they are cited as examples.      I also think the ones you listed are much more relevant for DNSOPS, not for protocol maintenance group.

We can agree to differ about that Bob. Not that it matters because enumerating lists of stuff in a WG charter is a very bad idea. Just saying "other appropriate organisations” gives the new WG the flexibility to choose to add and remove these organisations as the need arises without needing to recharter. That has to be a good thing.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status