DNSAND is a nice callback to DNSIND... :) > On 6 Oct 2026, at 22:48, George Michaelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > protocol and payload. > > dns and rrsig > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 6:47 AM Ondřej Surý <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Yeah, dnsman feels definitely wrong to me. I’m looking at other active wg >> and these names pop up: >> >> dns - I actually like that idea, Ted, there’s a lot of groups named like this >> dnsbis (DNS, like httpbis is HTTP) >> dnsm (DNS maintenance; sshm, tcpm) >> dnsmaint (DNS maintenance; mailmaint) >> dnsme (DNS maintenance and extensions; ipsecme) >> dnscore (DNS core protocol; sipcore) >> dnsp (DNS Protocol; but too close to dnsop) >> dnsu (DNS update; emu) >> dnswg (DNS Working Group; rtgwg) >> >> Out of these - dns, dnswg and dnsme are my favorites. >> >> Ondrej >> -- >> Ondřej Surý (He/Him) >> >> A gentle nudge is always appreciated if I take a little longer to reply. >> >>> On 6. 10. 2026, at 22:24, Ted Lemon <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Oct 2026, at 19:47, Shumon Huque <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> I'm totally fine with "dnsext", or perhaps "dnsman" (DNS protocol >>>> maintenance) if we want an analog to the v6ops/6man split. >>> >>> I think dnsman is probably not ideal for.. reasons. If a new name is >>> needed, DNSINT sounds fine. DNSEXT also seems fine. Or, here's a crazy >>> idea, "DNS". :) >>> >>> Okay, probably not. >>> >>>> My views on cute names have changed over the years. I now think these are >>>> mainly fun for the "in crowd" and less welcoming to others. >>> >>> This is a pretty good argument against. >>> >>>> Also, the camel trope, in my view, is way overused at this point. While it >>>> is often used to usefully beat back bad ideas, it is often used more >>>> broadly to push back against useful changes too. And the DNS protocol >>>> certainly has many deficiencies and areas for improvement. I am not in >>>> favor of memorializing this trope in the name of a DNS working group. >>> >>> Also a good argument. I liked the idea of CAMEL on first read, but I think >>> the points raised against it are compelling. >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
