Subject: DNSEXT draft charter v2.1

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:04:48 -0400

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

--
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: Kevin Darcy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:05:29 -0400

> unless there is strong opposition.
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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:40:09 -0400 (EDT)

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

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

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:35:53 -0500

> How about "scope" instead of remit, as it complements the "out of  

For a non-native speaker as myself that word appeals more than  
'remit' for which I had to open my dictionary.

> existing protocol documents are vague.

Didn't v2.1 already mention that? Or are you trying to classify when  
the clarification needs to be done i.e.  when the existing protocol  
documents are vague?

original text, emphasis added:
>> and CLARIFICATION to the DNS protocol, including DNSSEC. Adoption of

--Olaf
   namedropper...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:40:56 -0400

> How about "scope" instead of remit, as it complements the "out of scope" 

That's a good idea, I think: the symmetry is a good idea.

How is that different from this part of the proposed text:

> > > charter. 

?

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: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:42:03 -0400

Thanks to Kevin and Dean for suggesting better wording.

>How about "scope" instead of remit, as it complements the "out of scope"

Good suggestion, applied

>existing protocol documents are vague.

As others have pointed out this is in the charter, if you think there
it is not clear as possible, please send text.

         Olafur

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:53:19 -0400 (EDT)

> > > > new work targeted for standards track will require changes to this

I agree, the above text is fine with me.  

		--Dean