Replying here only because it is a convenient place in this thread, and definitely not with any hats on.
I think that a side meeting specifically to discuss how to progress RFC 6761bis at IETF 115 could be a good way forward. I also note that the final agenda for IETF 115 is available and side meetings can be booked. Personally, I'm less keen on either spinning up a separate WG to tackle this or going via the AD-sponsored path because it isn't obvious that an AD-sponsored bis document would gain IETF consensus when the chartered WG is unable to. The other suggestion that I wanted to put out there is perhaps a small, dedicated design team within DNSOP set up by the chairs to work on this problem and collectively work on a solution draft that can then be brought back to the WG. In my experience, sometimes issues that get stuck within a larger WG end up making more progress when worked on within a smaller team. Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: DNSOP <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: 04 October 2022 00:06 > To: Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> > Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] An Orderly Way Forward on Special Use Names (Yes, > again) > > On Oct 3, 2022, at 3:53 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > > As the chairs’ email also said: > > “We’re well aware not everyone is interested in this work and that the WG > has a chronic issue of a full pipeline of documents to consider.” A side > meeting > to discuss the followup to RFC8244 may provide some energy to work on the > problem. > > The chairs' message did not talk about "the followup to RFC8244". When I > volunteered to set up the side meeting, I assumed it was about RFC 6761. I do > not see any reason to follow up on the comprehensive list in RFC 8244; it > stands > well on its own. > > > It is very unclear that a different WG would attract sufficient mass - yes, > many people in DNSOP are tired of this topic, but it is clearly an important > topic (and in the DNSOP charter), and moving it off to a group where it > doesn’t > get the required review is not helpful. > > The logic here concerns me. If a different WG cannot attract sufficient mass, > discussing it in DNSOP with that same insufficient mass wastes many more > people's time. An insufficient mass is a strong indicator that something > cannot > reach IETF consensus; that is important information. > > The fact that it is currently in the DNSOP charter is not terribly relevant: > it was > put there when we were young and hopeful. We then let it fester in the denial > zone, mouldering until (ed: stop with the gross imagery!)... > > --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
