pls see inline comments below... On 10/8/26 6:24 AM, Jim Mozley wrote:
Yes, I concur with the above as well. Besides, there literally is NOTHING that prevents the WG from forming sub-committees to work on non-congruent or separate approaches.On 7 Oct 2026, at 20:28, Roy Arends <[email protected]> wrote: Whether it is good or bad, let’s agree that “Camel” has a special meaning in this community: it represents a particular view about DNS complexity and the cost of further protocol extensions. Whatever the merits of that view, the cuteness of the name, or the contemporary rhetorical value it had, we should not institutionalise it by making it the name of a working group intended to be a neutral venue for DNS protocol work. DNSPROTO simply says what the WG does. It also makes the relationship with DNSOP immediately clear: DNSOP for operational work, DNSPROTO for protocol work. A WG name should describe the work, not take a position on it.FWIW +1 to the above. I appreciate the camel reference and understand it is a serious reminder, but I would’t make it the name of the working group.
And what's with all the cc's? just reply list, Please! Kindest regards, -- Bradley D. Thornton Manager Network Services https://NorthTech.US Key available at: https://keyoxide.org/A0E3913390670CCE
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
