[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revised draft charter for DNSEXT

thanks,


At 04:01 09/07/2007, you wrote:

Olafur,
--On 07 July 2007 18:20 -0400 "�lafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair" <ogud@ogud.com> wrote: 

Nits only:


The DNSEXT WG group
will actively advance DNS protocol-related RFCs on the standards
track, while defending against further extensions of the DNS that
are of questionable value.


A. The word "group" is superfluous (WG /is/ a working "group").


applied.



B. This (possibly deliberately) reads in a slightly reactionary manner.
It (rightly) suggests DNSEXT should defend against questionable
"further" extensions, but the extensions DNSEXT should "advance"
are "RFCs on the standards track". This might be read that the
"defence" applies prospectively (i.e. to future RFCs), but the
"advance" only applies to existing RFCs (else what purpose
does the word "further" serve). Assuming it wasn't meant to be
quite that reactionary, I suggest either
(1) dropping the word "further"; or
(2) adding the qualifier "current and future" before "RFCs" in
   the first clause; or
(3) rewriting as "The DNSEXT WG will actively advance on the standards track
   those DNS protocol related RFCs and extensions that are of value, whilst
   defending against those which are not." [this formulation also loses
   any implication that RFCs and other extensions (IDs?) will be
   somehow be treated qualitatively differently]


This was intentional and is strongly implies that new work is
second class citizen until added to the charter :-) see below.



DNSEXT scope


C. I think that should be "The DNSEXT WG's scope"


applied,


resides within the realm of the DNS protocols,
not operation of the DNS. Specifically, items that are under
its purview include:

  1. Any proposed changes that affect DNS protocols "on the wire"
  2. Any proposed changes that affect how DNS data is processed

Thus, the WG will limit itself to review of proposals for new extensions


D. I suspect "proposed" or "suggested" extensions would be better than
"new", as it then covers current proposals too.


This paragraph is about the hurdle that NEW work needs to pass
i.e updated charter, while the old work (i.e. existing RFC's)
can be done without charter changes.
For example clarifying Dynamic update in a way that may make it
behave slightly differently than the current RFC specifies but
complies with current implementations can be done w/o charter change.



and clarification of the DNS protocol, including extensions on DNSSEC.
Adoption of new work targeted for standards track will require changes to
this charter. The group does not intend to hold face to face meetings,
though may do so if deemed necessary for resolution of a specific issue
at hand.

DNSEXT


E. "The DNSEXT WG"


applied



also maintains a living ID of errata for the DNSSECbis
(RFC403[345]) documents, and will conduct the specified RFC2929bis review
of RR templates as they are posted.


Alex


Thank you for your constructive comments,


        Olafur


--
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/>