[dns-at-ietf] Re: managing workload within and across DNS WGs

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

If nobody wants to implement some draft the IETF is working on, that may be a useful signal we should pay attention to, rather than a reason not to wait for an implementation before publishing it as an RFC…

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025, at 8:34 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Nov 8, 2025, at 06:23, Petr Špaček <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Summary:
> > Requiring implementations before rubber stamping RFCs would improve quality of output. I believe at the same time it would cut down on amount of busy work the WG does for no tangible effect (= docs nobody implements).
> 
> The obvious problem here is that causes the WG to be held hostage by a few implementations. See the SSH WG of 200x and now to see how well that worked. The ietf should design interoperable standards and let the world decide which ones it ends up using. Yes bad ideas should be stopped but good ideas even if frozen for a decade are not a waste of time.
> 
> The Query Chain RFC didn’t eat up that much dnsop time. The idea was pretty obvious and simple to define and even the main implementations didn’t object but just never prioritized. It would have been great for DNSSEC adoption in browsers and other apps, but it was never given attention by the main implementers and people keep asking me as author which software supports it because they want to use the feature. It just seems to be lacking a sponsor to get it done. That doesn’t make the RFC a bad investment of dnsop.
> 
> I mean, KeyTag (or draft-pwouters-powerbind, or the onion / .zz TLDs) took a lot more dnsop energy out of the group than Chain Query.
> 
> I didn’t evaluate the rest of your list.
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> dns-at-ietf mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>