Subject: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:42:19 -0400

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

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:53:18 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the 
> DNSOP charter:
>
> ---
>
> 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.

Those would be a good addition to the charter, and solve a problem that
I have with some of my minor extensions drafts. I would support this.

Paul

---

From: "Guangqing Deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:44:43 +0800

Good news to me especially the point 6, for we are now considering some DNS-related issues. I would support this. 

Guangqing 
Deng
CNNIC  From: Tim WicinskiDate: 2014-03-20 03:42To: dnsopCC: joel jaeggliSubject: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter 
Hello

---

 
------

thanks
 
tim
 
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:38:32 -0400

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:
> mangement.  After some discussion we're proposing adding two items to the
> DNSOP charter:
>
> ---
>

Last sentence does not parse (and I'm not quite sure what you were
trying to say, so unclear how to fix it).

W

>
> ------
>
> We welcome your feedback either on the items, the wording, or anything you
> wish to comment on.
>
> thanks
>
> tim
>

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:16:28 -0400

> trying to say, so unclear how to fix it).

Ooof.  I obviously failed to incorporate the correct wording from my 
co-chair.

What this sentence is trying to say is:
	The group will then discuss these issues and decide if which
	group should address the solution space.

Is something like this:
	dnsop will take in drafts that revolve around DNS-related issues, and 
the group will discuss the problem space (via drafts) and decide:
		1. should the solution space be addressed in dnsop?
		2. If not, help decide where the work would be better
		 carried out and work with the appropriate ADs on this.

This still sounds horrible.

tim

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:46:12 +0100

I am fine with these 2 items if DNS includes DNSSEC. Maybe replacing
DNS by "DNS or DNSSEC" clarify this.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> and
>         dnsop will take in drafts that revolve around DNS-related issues,
> and the group will discuss the problem space (via drafts) and decide:

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:49:46 -0400

> DNS by "DNS or DNSSEC" clarify this.

Currently #2 of the charter states:

	2. Publish documents concerning DNSSEC operational procedures.

But I understand what you mean here, and I was thinking it was a logical 
extension.

tim

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:50:50 -0400

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 09:49:46AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> But I understand what you mean here, and I was thinking it was a
> logical extension.

Since the expansion of the term is "The DNS Security Extensions", it
is indeed a natural extension at least.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:09:12 -0400

> is indeed a natural extension at least.

While I agree it should be considered a 'natural extension', good 
charters appear to be specific in certain places, and vague in other 
places.  The real key is getting the correct balance of precise and vague.

tim

---

From: "Jiankang Yao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:06:26 +0800

From: Warren Kumari
Date: 2014-03-21 19:38
To: Tim Wicinski
CC: joel jaeggli; dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Changes to Charter
> RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of  extending DNS to support

Since DNSEXT closed down, this wording can help to solve the small issues related to extensions to the DNS Protocol
if the issue is not big enough to create a new WG.

Jiankang Yao

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:48:13 -0700

> DNS to support other applications.

I fell like this is intended to allow work on issues related to the
root/tld registration but without being explicit. I'm a little on the
fence with respect to how explicit we want to but I think we should
actually call it out.

---

From: Dan York <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 01:54:43 +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:

> options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, DNSSEC, or other mechanics of
>extending

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

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:39:58 -0400

> fence with respect to how explicit we want to but I think we should

We were trying to be explicitly vague, or vaguely explicit.  I was 
thinking we could say something like "such as root/tld conflicts or 
namespace or application space conflicts".

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:14:01 -0700

> namespace or application space conflicts".

if I had to channel my other colleagues on the IESG it's probably
important enough to warrant it's own bullet. I will ultimately get my
own chance to whittle at the text so it's just a suggestion.

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 05:18:59 -0400

Dan,

See below

>> DNS to support other applications.

I can buy adding it, if it helps drive the point home.   This will still 
go through some editing steps.
> and appropriate ADs to determine the appropriate group for the work.
I like this second phrasing of yours, and have replaced my text with 
yours,.
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/charter/ ).

This was *exactly* our idea when adding this item.  I do not know if 
there is a specific need, but I do know we are approached regularly 
about drafts that involve DNS that wants anything from review to 
blessing.  I believe we've been given some latitude to provide that 
function, and I believe DNSOP can perform this function, as long as 
things are handled in a timely manner, with clear disposition.

> it is not clear where else someone would bring new DNS-related questions

Thanks for these comments. I'll spin a new version adding all the things 
I've heard so far and send it out later today.

tim