Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 24 July 2019 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1356120112 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tGI1u4hwH7cS for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayla.bortzmeyer.org (ayla.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fe27:3d3f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98E2A120059 for <add@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ayla.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 49A17A0531; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:04:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EA510EC0AFD; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:03:02 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:03:02 -0400
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Brett Carr <brett.carr@nominet.uk>
Cc: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190724170302.GC29051@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <CAChr6Sx9TEt6CMzRRrdb-HwT_k987oW=4yF1FCbDF17zkaE2Vg@mail.gmail.com> <AAEA003A-58DB-4FEE-81B2-BBFE9BBB2A37@rfc1035.com> <CAChr6SwA+HM4u5-xpUxQXPH8G8k7sfm6AETJJ019HE=bsq+OXA@mail.gmail.com> <8F094057-DFBC-4732-9DA4-BE46E7914C8A@rfc1035.com> <F7B7CE96-4ED6-42F0-9287-1A63967B0469@nominet.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F7B7CE96-4ED6-42F0-9287-1A63967B0469@nominet.uk>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 18.04 (bionic)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/wOZMcu44xoigOfwkjb_p87VSNq0>
Subject: Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:04:48 -0000

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:30:03AM +0000,
 Brett Carr <brett.carr@nominet.uk> wrote 
 a message of 27 lines which said:

> I would like to see lots of operators running DOH/DOT in an
> interoperable standard way and not leave it to a few large
> organisations.

I fully agree (the more, the better), but it does not completely
depend on IETF (we don't run network services). (See my paper at the
last IAB workshop
<https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/dedr-workshop/position-papers/>)