Re: DNSEXT draft charter v2.1

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

How about "scope" instead of remit, as it complements the "out of scope" 
in the next sentence.

I think the DNSEXT group should also consider clarifications where the
existing protocol documents are vague.

		--Dean

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Kevin Darcy wrote:

> O'lafur Gu?mundsson /DNSEXT chair wrote:
> > Thanks to Jim Reid for submitting text that better captures the
> > intent of the last draft.
> > Our AD, intends to submit this draft to the IESG for approval,
> > unless there is strong opposition.
> >
> > Olafur
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > The DNS has a large installed base and repertoire of protocol
> > specifications. The DNSEXT WG group will actively advance DNS
> > protocol-related RFCs on the standards track while thoroughly
> > reviewing further proposed extensions. The remit of the DNSEXT WG is
> > confined to the DNS protocol, particularly changes that affect DNS
> > protocols "on the wire" or the internal processing of DNS data. DNS
> > operations are out of scope for the WG.
> >
> > The WG will limit itself to review of proposals for new extensions
> > and clarification to the DNS protocol, including DNSSEC. Adoption of
> > new work targeted for standards track will require changes to this
> > charter. The WG does not intend to hold face to face meetings, though
> > may do so if deemed necessary for resolution of a specific issue at
> > hand.
> >
> > The DNSEXT WG will conduct the specified RFC2929bis review of RR
> > templates as they are posted and also maintain a living ID of errata
> > for the DNSSEC document set.
> >
> >
> > Milestones:
> > July 2007 RFC2536bis and RFC2539bis advanced to IESG.
> > Sept 2007 DNAMEbis advanced to IESG
> > Oct 2007 Forgery Resilience advanced to IESG
> >
> Could we use "mission" instead of "remit"? Nounal "remit" is a little 
> obscure, and seems to carry a sense of "sent back for consideration", 
> which doesn't strike me as appropriate in this context (sent back from 
> where?). Or is "mission" too much like CorporateSpeak or MilitarySpeak?
> 
> "Ambit" would be another alternative, if the intent is to reinforce the 
> sense of narrowing and/or limitation, although, like "remit", it's also 
> slightly obscure...
> 
> - Kevin
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



--
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/>