Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

Dan,

See below

On 3/24/14, 9:54 PM, Dan York wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
> I support these changes as they seem to be logical modifications to the
> charter, particularly given the closing of the DNSEXT wg.  I personally
> don't know that DNSSEC needs to be added to point #5, as I do see it as a
> natural extension of DNS.  However, I could see that for clarity for other
> people it might be useful.  Perhaps just adding DNSSEC into the list of
> options would work such as:
>
>> 5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol,
>> initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act
>> as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0
>> options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, DNSSEC, or other mechanics of
>> extending
>> DNS to support other applications.

I can buy adding it, if it helps drive the point home.   This will still 
go through some editing steps.
> Again, I don't know that this is 100% required, but it may be a simple
> change to help things be 100% clear to all.
>
> I agree with Warren that the wording of the last sentence of point #6
> isn't clear, and thank you for your explanation, Tim.  What about this?
> ------
> 6.  Publish documents that address DNS-related issues, by identifying
> and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then
> identify whether these issues should be addressed within DNSOP or
> within another appropriate working group.
> ------
>
> Or perhaps starting it differently:
> ------
> 6. Serve as a clearinghouse for DNS-related issues where people can bring
> drafts that document the problem space around DNS issues.  The group will
> then decide whether those issues belong in DNSOP or will work with the
> authors
> and appropriate ADs to determine the appropriate group for the work.
> ------
I like this second phrasing of yours, and have replaced my text with 
yours,.
> It sounds like you are trying to do something sort of like what the RAI
> area did with the DISPATCH working group where people could bring work
> ideas that related to real-time communications and that working group
> would "dispatch" the issues to the appropriate existing working group - or
> create a new working group to take on that new work.    In the case of
> DISPATCH, that group exists solely to serve as this clearinghouse and is
> not chartered to perform specific work itself (
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/charter/ ).

This was *exactly* our idea when adding this item.  I do not know if 
there is a specific need, but I do know we are approached regularly 
about drafts that involve DNS that wants anything from review to 
blessing.  I believe we've been given some latitude to provide that 
function, and I believe DNSOP can perform this function, as long as 
things are handled in a timely manner, with clear disposition.

> In this case, it sounds like you are looking for this to be a *part* of
> what DNSOP is to be about.  (And I can see that being a useful function as
> it is not clear where else someone would bring new DNS-related questions
> *except* to DNSOP.)
>
> Dan

Thanks for these comments. I'll spin a new version adding all the things 
I've heard so far and send it out later today.

tim