Re: DNSEXT future

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> For this reason we asked the meeting and our AD for guidance on what to do
> with the working group. The three options are
> 	A. keep the working group open
> 	B. Put the group to sleep/hibernate

IMO, saying the WG  is "hibernating/sleeping/dormant" is a
misnomer. The implication is that it will become active again in the
future. I'm not sure that is true, or we want it to be. :-)

While I do like closing WGs (generally), it seems that DNS-related
issues will continue to pop up (some of them in the Bad Idea
category), and having an official WG for dealing with such issues is a
more open and transparent way of doing so than via a directorate or
other means. Speaking as a former  AD, one generally welcomes having a
WG say "we don't need this" to the AD having to say so themselves and
then be accused of having an agenda, etc.

Note that the another WG that has been mentioned as an example is
pppext. Clearly PPP work is finished and has been for a long
time. Yet, that area has had the problem where ideas-killed-long-ago
magically appear as individual submissions. Having a WG around to
review such documents has proven useful.

The  PPPEXT charter says:

> The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP, RFC 1661) is a mature protocol with a
> large number of subprotocols, encapsulations and other extensions. The 
> group will actively advance PPP's most useful extensions to full 
> standard, while defending against further enhancements of questionable 
> value.

A revised DNSEXT charter could easily summarize the state of DNS work
(done, or whatever) and outline what it thinks the role of the WG is.

So, I'd favor a recharter, with a new scope that says things like:

  - DNS work is largely finished, WG is not soliciting
    extensions/enhancements (that could be done via a BOF if
    appropriate)

  - Will work on revising unclear documents and advancing them as
    appropriate.

  - does not expect to  have face-to-face meetings

  - will only take on new work items if there is strong support that
    the work is needed, and then in consultation with the AD.

  - explicitely list the remaining work items that are almost done but
    need to be completed

Or some such.

Thomas    

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>