Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: rfc6761bis

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 20:58 +0000 Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 07/12/2022 19:56, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> That's not enough context for me to know if I care.
>> Is there a list of issues/concerns?
> 
> Be careful what you ask for! :-)
> 
> If you look at the dnsop list archive you should find many
> of the issues and arguments there.
> 
> Trying to reproduce 'em here or in the list announce would
> maybe just move the bun-fight, so better not I'd say.

Stephen,

Agreed.   However, at least some of us who have been deeply
concerned about both naming issues and the somewhat-related
question of what types of functionality belong in the DNS have
avoided the DNSOP list because that WG is supposed to be
concerned with DNS operational issues _and_ has, AFAICT,
declined to address the issues identified almost five years ago
in RFC 8324 and in Bert Hubert's IETF 101 DNS Camel
presentation.  

AFAICT, the addition of items 5 and 6 to the current charter in
the 2014 - 2018 period did two things.  

First, it assigned the WG a dispatch-like ("clearinghouse")
function for almost all issues and topics that might be seen as
DNS-related.  If that function has been actively performed, I
have seen little evidence of it despite the impact of some of
those proposals on work in other WGs and Areas.  There may have
been evidence within the WG or the Operations and Management
Area but, again, these issues affect large fractions of the IETF
and more visibility seems important and neglected.  There has
been little public evidence of "...advice and consent of the
responsible AD in coordination with other areas" either, noting
that it says "other areas" not "private consultations with ADs
in those areas".  I also note that I was, for many years, IETF
liaison to another organization with deep interest and knowledge
about naming issues more generally and that I do not recall ever
being consulted by the DNSOP WG. 

Second, it seems to make almost all naming issues the
responsibility of the DNSOP WG.  That appears to not have been
executed upon, at least for several instances I checked from ART
(and from Applications before that change).

So, although I generally share Keith's concerns, I think this
mailing list is a good idea.  However, that belief assumes that
the dispatching and oversight responsibilities and authority
will either be removed from the DNSOP charter or a clear and
public distinction drawn between DNSOP scope and the scope of
this list, with moderators/ responsible parties for both lists
assuming responsibility for being sure postings end up in the
right place.

   john