Re: [dnsext] WG Review: Recharter of DNS Extensions (dnsext)

[Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]>]

At 06:45 08/07/2009, Shane Kerr wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 05:48 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > Remember that we put the WG "to sleep" some time ago, on the general
> > principle that continued tinkering with a protocol as mature as DNS
> > was not a great idea.  That's not to say there are no refinements to
> > make.  But the idea was to have a high bar for additional work, in
> > order to make sure that the additional work was really valuable before
> > undertaking it.  As it is, it seems to me we're at least somnambulent:
> > we seem to be pretty busy for someone sleeping.
>
>I confess to zoning out during the discussion about going dormant,
>because it was one of those topics that everyone can immediately
>understand and form an instant opinion. So there were lots of speeches
>at the microphones, huge e-mail threads with low signal-to-noise ratios,
>and so on. Apologies for my lack of attention. It seemed to make sense
>from a theoretical point of view though.

No problem I wish I could have tuned that discussion out.
But over the last addition to DNS OpCodes was Update RFC2136/Apr-1997
(we retired an Opcode in RFC3425/Nov-2002, similarly we last change to
Response codes are defined in a total of 6 RFC's most in RFC1034 and RFC2136.

NSEC3 is the last item that has required heavy protocol work.
Thus it is fair to say "DNS is stable protocol".

Ideas that require actual new protocol work or registrations have been few
over the last decade thus the current draft charter seemed appropriate.

Recharterning is not that difficult it only takes time :-), it seems to me
that your "brilliant" idea needs a recharter due to its "brilliance" :-)


>The current style of DNS standards work seems to be that we have a
>number of people working full-time on DNS stuff, and occasionally they
>think of something that should be standardized, so when they have a few
>moments they write something down and present it to the dnsext working
>group. This seems to work pretty good (except for the huge mass of
>confusing RFCs, hopefully an effort to fix that will arise again some
>day).
>
>I'm not sure if the IXFR-ONLY stuff is interesting enough for a
>recharter. (I'm happy to pursue it as an individual submission, although
>I heard horror stories about that process. Maybe that was only in the
>past though.) Weird that we have a system designed to make it hard to
>make small tweaks but easy to make major changes though!

It will still land in the WG group.

>Maybe we should collect small DNS work in a separate area and then
>create a "dnsfix" group every now and then to push them through the
>standards process? It hardly seems ideal, but...

What is there to fix ?

If WG thinks thinks this idea warrants a further study, then the 
right thing to do
is to send a note to the IESG saying that following line should be 
added to the
draft charter:
         "IXFR-Only standardization"

With following Milestone:
         "20xx Mon     IXFR-Only submitted to IESG"

         Olafur


         Olafur


--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>