Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
Dan York <york@isoc.org> Tue, 25 March 2014 01:54 UTC
Return-Path: <york@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB141A0090 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id le0UBYj0nbW0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0211.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA121A0088 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.154) by BLUPR06MB242.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.191.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.898.11; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:54:44 +0000
Received: from BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.45]) by BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.45]) with mapi id 15.00.0898.005; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:54:44 +0000
From: Dan York <york@isoc.org>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
Thread-Index: AQHPQ6tXv+Erj8hqrkWYPRXr1ch3vprxmSSA
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:54:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CF56FDD9.6FC62%york@isoc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5329F31B.20107@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.101.5]
x-forefront-prvs: 01613DFDC8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(428001)(199002)(189002)(24454002)(377454003)(51704005)(479174003)(86362001)(85306002)(94946001)(15975445006)(74662001)(56816005)(31966008)(95416001)(93516002)(74502001)(90146001)(85852003)(47446002)(87936001)(77096001)(80022001)(74706001)(2656002)(76176001)(76786001)(76796001)(74366001)(59766001)(74876001)(65816001)(79102001)(98676001)(77982001)(93136001)(49866001)(20776003)(36756003)(50986001)(47736001)(47976001)(4396001)(15202345003)(95666003)(97186001)(81342001)(97336001)(76482001)(69226001)(56776001)(80976001)(19580405001)(54316002)(81816001)(83072002)(63696002)(94316002)(19580395003)(81542001)(46102001)(51856001)(92726001)(53806001)(54356001)(83322001)(81686001)(87266001)(92566001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR06MB242; H:BLUPR06MB243.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:FC3FF105.9FFA53E1.71D31673.4AE6EB31.203E1; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: isoc.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <807D0A5E593B484284146E1BB9FAAB76@namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zYs6S3IPq-ram0YOVWV-Yn-bvpk
Cc: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:54:55 -0000
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. 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. ------ 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/ ). 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 On 3/19/14 3:42 PM, "Tim Wicinski" <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >Hello > >This is a conversation I've scheduled a few times and I did poor time >mangement. After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to >the DNSOP charter: > >--- > >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, or other mechanics of extending >DNS to support other applications. > >6. Publish documents which address DNS-related issues, by identifying >and documenting the problem space around the issue. The group will then >discuss these issues and decide if which group should address the >solution space. > >------ > >We welcome your feedback either on the items, the wording, or anything >you wish to comment on. > >thanks > >tim > >_______________________________________________ >DNSOP mailing list >DNSOP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter joel jaeggli
- [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Guangqing Deng
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Daniel Migault
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Jiankang Yao
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Dan York
- Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter Tim Wicinski