Re: [dnsext] getting people to use new RRTYPEs

On 4/25/13 11:22 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2013, at 01:46, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
>> The hardest thing is dealing with the naysayers.  The entire BS
>> that keeps getting repeated that getting a RR type is hard.
> It's not BS. Getting new RRtypes is easier than it used to be (in principle) but it is not easy.  Or at least, this WG creates the perception that it is not easy. Witness the recent pushback and BS around Joe's EUI{48,64} RRtypes. BWT, this was AFTER the RRtype Allocation Policy of RFC6895 had been followed and IANA had issued the type codes. That resistance from this WG -- "I'm in favour of liberalising type code assignments, but..." -- was not an isolated event.
Well realistically, the WG is closing down so work that would involve 
draft(s) being accepted and processed would occur elsewhere.

I brought the  discussion here, when considering whether to AD sponsor 
the draft because there is a critical mass of knowledge here that is 
useful for providing feedback.

There was useful criticism that lead to the draft being revised...

There was also criticism of the codepoint assignment that's all well and 
good. but this wg isn't in the code point assignment path so that's not 
germain.

There is criticism that there are better ways to do this. (I'm sure 
there are) that's fine, good enough should not be our enemy. were this 
not to achieve the required consensus  I see not reason why the IESG 
would prevent and indepedent stream documentation of the codepoint 
assignment.

It's disappointing but not surprising if others take the path of least resistance and go with a TXT record and avoid the hassle of the RFC6895 template and expert review. Not because that process is defective, but because the BS that tends to surface on this list. Having been on the receiving end of that treatment, I would think long and hard about coming to the IETF with a request for a new RRtype code instead of doing the "wrong" thing by following the herd and overloading the TXT record. Or just plucking a number from the reserved for private use range and hoping nobody else picks the same one.

I think we can demonstrate that RFC6895 assignment process is less 
onerous than the mailing list discussion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>