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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I appreciate the effort the author put into the process of driving the discussion and writing this up.

Here are a few thoughts that might improve the document.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

I am slightly unclear what this Last Call is asking. Is it seeking consensus on the opinions and recommendations detailed in the document, or is it seeking consensus to publish the team's record of their examination of opinions collected during their research? It seems fairly clear that the document is recording the team's findings, so it would seem that the Last Call is simply agreeing to the publication of that record. If so, it might be helpful for the document to state (Abstract and Introduction) that "The publication of this document does not indicate IETF consensus on the opinions that the team collected and recommendations that the team made."

---

I think the Abstract needs some work. It gives the background of the problem, and it says what the team was tasked with, but it then just says, "This document is the result of that effort" and "The outcome of the consultation is retained for historic reference."  

It would be nice if the Abstract could say a bit more about what the document is probably folding these two statements together.

Perhaps:
OLD
   This
   document is the result of that effort.

   The outcome of the consultation is retained for historic reference.
NEW
   This
   document records outcome of that consultation effort.

   This document is published to retain the record for historic reference.
END

You do have a paragraph in the Introduction that might help here:
   This document describes the small team’s findings (Section 2), their
   derived recommendations (Section 3) and topics where the team did not
   find sufficient commonality within the collected opinions
   (Section 2.2).
You could use it as:
   This document describes the team’s findings, their derived
   recommendations, and topics where the team did not find sufficient
   commonality within the collected opinions.

In the Introduction, you also have a slightly more expansive explanation for publication which might aid the Abstract:
   This document is published for historical reference and also to
   provide a stable reference for future assessment of the DNS work in
   the future.

---

Section 1

You have "The DNS@IETF recommendation small team". That reads like a rather contrived compound noun.

Maybe:
OLD
   The DNS@IETF recommendation small team (which consisted of Wes
   Hardaker, Joe Abley and Lars-Johan Liman) reviewed all materials
NEW
   A small team (called the DNS@IETF team and consisting of Wes
   Hardaker, Joe Abley, and Lars-Johan Liman) was established to 
   review all materials collected through the discussions.
END

---

Section 1 (and throughout the document)

"the small team met multiple times"
No need to repeat that the team was small. (Makes it sound like there was also another team that was not so small.)

---

Section 1

   The main recommendations were then reviewed and reported in
   IETF#125 (March 2026)

It's fine, but you could say in which meeting the report was made. 

---

1.1

s/ recognize both/recognizes that both/
s/features itself/ features themselves/

---

1.2

s/the [BCP14] is/the key words defined in [BCP14] are/

---

3.
s/the IETF or were not sufficiently mature/the IETF or that were not sufficiently mature/

---

5.
Was there no discussion of DNS Security? Possibly there wasn't, in which case it might 
help to say so.

---

Section "Original project announcement"
Could you flag this as an Appendix?

---

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 10 April 2026 17:20
To: IETF-Announce <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Last Call: <draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06.txt> (Community considerations on DNS WG structures at IETF) to Historic RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Community considerations on DNS WG structures at IETF'
  <draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-06.txt> as Historic RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[e-mail] mailing lists by 2026-05-08. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   There has been an increasing level of discussion within the IETF
   about the best Working Group (WG) structures for handling the wide
   array of DNS work being conducted within the IETF.  As part of
   community consultation, a team coordinated by Wes Hardaker was asked
   to gather information from the community at large through e-mail,
   hallway discussions, and meetings and create a small team to discuss
   potential structural changes to be shared with the community.  This
   document is the result of that effort.

   The outcome of the consultation is retained for historic reference.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.





_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]