Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-07
review-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-07-dnsdir-telechat-wicinski-2026-06-01-00

Request Review of draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team DNS Directorate (dnsdir)
Deadline 2026-06-02
Requested 2026-05-28
Authors Wes Hardaker , Lars-Johan Liman , Joe Abley
I-D last updated 2026-06-04 (Latest revision 2026-05-19)
Completed reviews Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Intdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by David Lou (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Qin Wu (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -07 by Tim Wicinski
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf by DNS Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsdir/nltZH-vGsX9rt28piKCsKfjLlAQ
Reviewed revision 07
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-06-01
review-hardaker-dns-wgs-at-ietf-07-dnsdir-telechat-wicinski-2026-06-01-00
DNSDIR review

I have performed a review of this draft as assigned by the DNS Directorate,
and these reviews are intended to pay close attention to aspects of the draft
that intersect with the DNS and its operation. While this document does not
talk about DNS specifics, it does discuss

I mostly have questions but I welcome any guidance.  Also, feel free to ignore
these comments.

Does this need to be an RFC? Can this be an IESG statement?  It seems like
pushing it a bit for this informational RFC, but I can never keep up with the
administrivia of the IESG/IETF.

If it is a RFC, it doesn't really have a statement of the problem other than
"handling the DNS work being conducted within the IETF". I think it's the
"vibes we all know what needs to be done".

A restructuring of the DNS related WGs would be a good thing. I don't think
anyone has claimed otherwise. But aren't there existing processes within the
IESG to propose and charter working groups?

If we do publish this as an RFC for something so specific that it won't be
beneficial to other working groups in similar situations on how to address the
problem.  I can see other busy groups run into this situation, and having some
IETF wide guidance would make it a more useful document.  Or again, is this
something which could come from the IESG?

My general feeling is that the IESG should have started on these steps without
waiting for this document.