So what you are suggesting is that the agenda is the charter (or viceversa) therefore provide a more or less stable framework for the agenda and ask people to step forward and help the chairs and the wg by taking responsibility for certain specific items on an ongoing basis? Just making sure I understand your intentions as this is a "different" way of putting down a charter. I like it. Joao On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Note: I want _LOTS_ of comments on the following. You will see after this a message about the agenda of the meeting at RIPE 46.
Idea: Create a list of "topics" which are divided in two groups:
[1] Topics which are larger discussion items. Each one will have one or more deliverables. There is a small group of people responsible for deliverables and they report back every DN* meeting.
[2] Organisations and groups (inside and outside of RIPE and RIPE NCC) which report to the DNS wg what is happening, what is currently discussed etc. This is summarized at every RIPE meeting as a compiled report to the RIPE DNS wg participants so they know what is happening in the world
The agenda at the RIPE meeting then consists of these two PLUS two other categories:
[3] Invited longer talks
[4] Short reports from groups which do not come back every meeting
The result from [3] and [4] is only included in the minutes of the RIPE meeting. Nothing more, nothing less.
Is that ok?
Given this is ok, the question is then what to include under each one of the bullets. This is (as you will see on the proposed agenda) what I want to have discussed at the RIPE meeting.
Below you can see _MY_PERSONAL_ idea. Probably many things forgotten, possibly many things wrong.
Please correct. Let me know you are interested in spending some CPU cycles.
Small things which will make the future more organized is that my goal is to keep exactly the same "item numbers" for every item, and never changing them over the years. That means the only topic I have got suggestions on (see below) is 1.1. Next will be 1.2. Etc.
paf
Charter for the DN* wg at RIPE (to be updated at each RIPE meeting) -------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Topics with deliverables
1.1 Quality of the DNS
We have a few contributors here:
+ domainSentinel tool for lame checking Chagres Role Account <role@chagres.net>
+ RIPE NCC DNS Monitoring Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
+ DNSCHECK for verification of delegations Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Deliverables:
1.1.1 Recommendations for measures DNS serv*ice* quality
1.1.2 Recommendations how to summarise the results for consumption by the non-technical public
1.1.3 What is an "error"?
1.1.3.1 "Lame" 1.1.3.2 "Wrong glue" 1.1.3.3 "Non-authoritative response" 1.1.3.4 "Transport over TCP" 1.1.3.5 ...
1.1.4 What is good practice regarding measurement?
1.1.5 ...
[2] Reports / status items
2.1 Monitoring 2.1.1 RIPE NCC DNS Monitoring Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
2.2 DNS in the IETF 2.2.1 DNSEXT 2.2.2 DNSOP 2.2.3 Other wg's which touch DNS
2.3 EPP deployment / experience / status Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
2.4 Root servers
2.5 IDN deployment / experience
2.6 DNSSEC deployment / experience
2.7 Anycast deployment / experience 2.7.1 Dave Knight 2.7.2 I-Root (Lars-Johan Liman)
2.7 CENTR Technical committee
2.8 DNS Software 2.8.1 Bind 2.8.2 OpenReg 2.8.3 ...
2.9 IPv6 deployment / experience Unknown