Hi folks, so ... ogud + friendly AD: There seems some serious reluctance to re-charter DANE to do more work (for reasons I'd love to see spelt out). The question's been asked, but I haven't seen a detailed answer.
Shumon/Bello/Melinda/...: Given that reluctance, if you want to do some work, develop a charter though the BOF process (same as keyassure/DANE did), convince the ADs, and get a ->new<- WG for this new work. [maybe called SWEDE?] John: As for the use of keeping the ML open after the WG has died: remind me again how successful that has been in the IETF. all the best, Lawrence On 4 Feb 2016, at 23:06, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> First... +100 to what Shumon said! We are at the stage of DANE deployment >> where, while the protocol may be >> well-developed, the deployment is only now beginning... and I think it would >> send a wrong message to kill >> of the group now. > > I'm sorry, but this shows a complete misunderstanding of what a > working group is and how the IETF works. WGs exist to develop > standards, following their charters. The whole reason that WGs have > charters is so they don't just drift on forever. > > If, as it appears, DANE has finished the work in its charter, it's > time to shut it down. In the past, some WG's mailing lists have > stayed open for discussions of topics related to the former WG's work. > It looks line DANE could be a candidate for that. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
