Relationship with IETF work-groups

[vcunat]

Opening an issue, as I think it should be clarified on the text, too (and perhaps on the web).

I'm a bit confused about this group. Is the intention that the IETF groups should do standards and here the focus will be deployment? Closely related IETF WGs: dprive, doh, perhaps dnsop and add (which is only a mailing-list). I'm a bit concerned about fragmenting the same work and discussion to too many places. The about as written currently does feel like most of it would fit into one of those IETF places already, especially with the dnsop catch-all (it's even in ops area!)

[jlivingood]

IMO the IETF isn't focused on deployment. Looking for example at v6ops vs World IPv6 Day, there is value in community efforts to test/deploy/share info. Current IETF WGs are not the place for this, though some of what comes from this work may feedback to IETF.

[vcunat]

OK, that confirms my suspicion; maybe it's just me and it will be clear for others 🤷‍♂️

In general I think the groups like dnsop would benefit from more feedback from "deployment people", so their concerns get sufficiently discussed before publishing standards... though here I suppose focus will be on best practices, etc. It's a bit late to change DoT or DoH anyway, though it's theoretically possible.

[vcunat]

As an example, I'd say that this RFC draft is very relevant: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op/ so at least parts are done/doable within IETF.

That particular draft might be very interesting, as it already went through WG last call but didn't make it through, probably due to relatively little interest/feedback from the community.