Subject: Re: DNSEXT future

From: Mohsen Souissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:04:23 +0200

My 2 eurocents below:

 On 26 Mar, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
 | 
 | Dear Colleagues:

[...]
 
 | 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
 | 	C. Close the working group

==> I'm in favour of option "B" if "sleep/hibernate" means that the wg:

- remains the reference forum for discussions and decision process
  wrt future new DNS extensions requests, either on the mailing-list
  (which should remain open in all cases), or at face2face IETF
  meetings when there is enough material to justify holding a session

- remains the reference wg for reporting any issues (specification bugs,
  clarification requests, ...) wrt to the running DNS protocol as a
  whole (ie the core DNS + the recent extensions including DNSSEC)

- is supposed to be the place (a sort of thinktank) where potential
  DNS2 design/specicications will/would take place

Otherwise, I would prefer option A. 

I believe that DNS protocol is so important for the whole Internet service
infrastructure that it would be wise to keep at least a background
activity on the three above-mentioned technical aspects...

Mohsen.

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

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:52:49 -0400

On 26-Mar-2007, at 20:36, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:

> [...]
>
> 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
> 	C. Close the working group
>
> [...]
>
> The purpose of this message is to gauge the mailing list as to  
> which option
> they think is the most appropriate.

I am quite ignorant of the procedural practicality of doing B, but I  
seem to think I heard from several well-informed people in the over- 
filled room in Prague that there is both precedent and accommodation  
to choose B.

That being the case, it seems sensible to me to choose B along with a  
time at which the decision could be reviewed based on experience  
gained during the intervening interval. If during the review it seems  
that we might as well have chosen C, then perhaps the group could be  
closed by consensus at that time. On the other hand, if there are  
indications to the contrary, perhaps we could continue with B, or  
perhaps rise from the ashes ("A") with new objectives.

So, for example, "hibernation for 18 months followed by review"  
sounds like a plausible option.

Joe

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:14:42 -0400

> For this reason we asked the meeting and our AD for guidance on what to do

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