[Last-Call] Re: Last Call: <draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06.txt> (Community considerations on DNS WG structures at IETF) to Historic RFC

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

I wanted to again thank Wes, Joe and Lars for this work.  We do not do this
kind of thing often enough.
Cleaning CC.

I don't agree with all the conclusions of the documents.
(In particular, I would enfranchise DNS-OARC and the RIR's various dns-wg more)

Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I do not believe that this document should be published as an

Ditto.

    > plenary -- but I do not think that this kind of background artifact
    > should be published as an RFC, especially when, as here, there's not
    > even a claim that the contents reflect IETF consensus. It's just
    > a report of some consultation.

I think the IESG could also conclude that it shouldn't be published, but it
might be that asking the IESG to ballot it is also a good way to get the IESG
to think about this problem as a whole and endorse a specific plan.

So, I agree that this should not be published as an RFC, but rather turn into
some kind of wiki/overview-of-DNS organization web page.
I'm not sure if there was a better way to get to this place.

My impression over 25 years of DNS* WGs is that requests for new RR requests
come in waves.   I think we are just in mid-peak for this "decade"{%%}
Getting new RRs used to be pretty much impossible until the proper
unknown-RR support got deployed.  RFC4025 was among the
first "new" ones... as I recall, we spun up an entire WG to do that.
That was ... very challenging at the time.

I concur with the impossibility of scheduling things like DNSDISPATCH.
(I still think we screwed up the ALLDISPATCH experiment)

But I think that actually, that's the feature of it.
The point of DNSDISPATCH is to be a Gong Show{%}.  But, more polite.
(Note how "running jokes" is actually part of our informal process)
I would **prefer** it did not take up plenary week time.
I acknowledge EKR's point that virtual interim meetings do not get the same
mix of people, but I think it's okay in this case.

Not everyone need be there; if a WG/BOF is recommended, then it gets prime
scheduling time.  Like SIPPING did for SIP 20 years ago, the point was to
deal with the many really bad ideas from genuinely well intentioned people
without taking up everyone's time.

I am not a fan of the decadal cycling of DNS WG names.
DNSEXT,DNSIND,DNSNEXT...  and this seems like another such cycling.
Thus I'd like to keep DNSOP.

---


{%}- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gong_Show
   The Gong Show is an American amateur talent contest created by Chuck
   Barris in 1976 and franchised by Sony Pictures Television to many
   countries. Each performer was evaluated by a panel of three celebrity
   judges who could strike a gong to end a performance they disliked. A small
   cash prize has typically been awarded to each episode's winner. The Gong
   Show is known for its absurdist humor, and often features amateurish, racy
   or questionable performers interspersed with more legitimate acts. The
   actual competition was typically secondary to the outlandish acts, and the
   series is also known for its free-form style which featured various
   interruptions, digressions and running jokes.

{%%}- what happened to the pyschohistorians^Wsociologists who used to examine us? Maybe
      there is thesis here.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
  ^---child of two sociologists, one being an SPSS/360 alpha user

          Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
**       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **