Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3901.100.1.1.12\))
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1E4903D6-B10D-495B-97B2-66FB3916BC77@rfc1035.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2026 09:18:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <242B25CE-5A94-4BF2-9178-FA6B79E305B8@gmail.com>
References: <D8883F08-769B-4218-B96A-E74D2F9F4E9F@rfc1035.com>
 <D8DB8CB6-4E48-4F8F-A54C-69F21FCEBD7E@gmail.com>
 <1E4903D6-B10D-495B-97B2-66FB3916BC77@rfc1035.com>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Message-ID-Hash: WQYJARHQBDASTVMX7KD5MX6MBB2ONUFL
CC: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Working Group DNSOP <dnsop@ietf.org>,
 int-area@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [Int-area] draft charter for new DNS WG
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rQXywrditnxuK3izsNbRn9H0f24>

Jim,

> On Nov 2, 2026, at 8:43=E2=80=AFAM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On 2 Nov 2026, at 16:20, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Nice to see a short charter!
>=20
> Thanks Bob. Let's keep it that way. :-)
>=20
>>> The IESG will decide whenever some aspects of DNS protocol =
activities are best carried out in other WGs. When this happens, those =
topics will be out of scope for the name-to-be-decided WG.
>>=20
>> Strongly suggest this be left to the relevant ADs and w.g. chairs.   =
Not everything needs a full IESG decision.  =20
>=20
> I think this is nit-picking. Sometimes these decisions could be for =
the ADs & co-chairs, sometimes they won't. The IESG is ultimately =
responsible for taking these decisions or delegating them to the =
appropriate AD(s) and/or WG co-chairs(s). We shouldn't need to spell =
this out in the WG charter.

I disagree.  As written it would have to go to the IESG.   Leave it to =
the ADs and w.g. chairs to decide if it needs to go to the IESG.

For example, in 6MAN we frequently have discussions if a new work should =
be in 6MAN, Spring, or Int Area.   I can=E2=80=99t remember when the =
IESG got involved.

>=20
>> Who are "other appropriate organizations=E2=80=9D mean?  Citing some =
examples would be good.
>=20
> 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.

Bob