[email protected] writes: > ○ Need for better separation between operations vs. protocol maintenance
I support the need for shifting to potentially multiple working groups in the future. The consolidation of both topics into dnsop was a side-effect of closing dnsext way back in the day to slow down DNS protocol development after the launch of DNSSEC. This made sense at the time, but a long time has passed and now dnsop has slowly migrated to take on both roles. This is evident in the need for two meeting slots per IETF :-) > Once DELEG is done, a second step will be to decide about the split of > the WG to offload protocol maintenance and dnsdev-like activities to a > separate WG and keep DNSOP focused on OPERATIONS. I'd like to request some clarification on the timing indicated. Is the current dnsop charter going to remain in place so the IETF has a place to continue doing any needed protocol maintenance, or is the proposal to stop that entirely until DELEG is done? To put it another way: is the proposed rechartering (and likely limiting) of DNSOP going to also be done post DELEG or do you plan on requesting a recharter in a short time frame, then waiting for DELEG to complete, and then starting a new WG? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
