I haven't seen an announcement about this side meeting yet. Did I miss it? On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 2:21 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
