Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dnsop-04-01: Block
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dnsop/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am in agreement with Orie about the vague nature of the charter. I previously balloted on the -04-00 with the following feedback: ==[ snip ]== ** What DNS topics are out of scope in the WG? As framed, it appears that nearly everything related to the “DNS protocol” would be in scope – BCPs for “DNS protocols (Sentence 1), documents from DNS operators (Sentence 2), and “maintenance, updates, and extensions to the DNS protocol” (Sentence 3). In what way is this scope different than DPRIVE, DELEG, or DNSSD that are also defining elements of the "DNS protocol"? ==[ snip ]== I don’t see any meaningful changes to provide restrictions to the charter. In the discussion on my earlier comment feedback during initial review, this WG was framed as one of last resort. I don’t see that reflected here. Additionally, it isn’t clear under what circumstance a new DNS-focused group would be established. Is there a consolidation opportunity? Do we need other DNS-focused WGs (e.g., DPRIVE, DELEG, and DNSSD)? I suspect that consolidation is not the answer, so this suggests additions scope to capture in this charter text. I appreciate that the addition of the phrase "as well as other narrowly-scoped DNS-related documents" was added to provide scope. For me it did the opposite. The original text "The DNSOP WG is also responsible for maintenance, updates, and extensions to the DNS protocol" seemed to cover nearly everything in DNS by my interpretation. Now, there is additional scope of work that is "DNS-related" which is less clear. What work is "DNS-related"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I previously balloted on the -04-00 with the following feedback: ==[ snip ]== ** Without specificity, isn’t this statement of “The WG will engage with relevant WGs and other appropriate organizations whenever collaboration is needed” true for any WG. How does this shape the behavior of the WG? Can it be more specific? ==[ snip ]== _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
