Subject: Revised DNSEXT charter V2

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:46:51 +0100

Taking on board the comments from Ed, John, Olaf and Alex as well as  
some private feedback to Olafur from myself, how about this?

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 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

--
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: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:54:06 -0400

> some private feedback to Olafur from myself, how about this?

[&c.]

I like the revision.  It captures the suggestions I've seen so far,
and I support it.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:10:23 +0200

> are out of scope for the WG.

FWIW, assuming this is the latest draft version, it has my support.  The
phrase "the processing of DNS data" read broader than I guess it's meant,
maybe "internal processing of DNS data" would be an improvement.  It
would would include a DNAME++ or anything that fell through 2929bis in terms
of RR types, new QTYPEs, but not preventing tree climbing or other
"processing" that happens outside the DNS.

> may do so if deemed necessary for resolution of a specific issue at  

Adoption of new work not aimed at Standards Track does not need such a change?

-Peter