Re: [dnsext] the DNS Directorate and the end of dnsext

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 19 December 2011 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61BEA21F8B25 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gazpcB8un4wz for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1B721F8AD2 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so1967142obc.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5quHV3j3LkxBphgyzUrqykkIiw+mcGV7RAaOJWw33LM=; b=ffyPx+acPXZxI4bJpkHnC247jCSPaVvQokUNKaiiy5YpCQQYbMK6Fg8jD29KYqNjmR xqzTbZpEqGc/uri8s/GHw41p49BzSpVbX/2pppmQkQBR5QO3Q6aUPIGMme+jMkXdeprj RRBIA5PTf/s0ucQaMEXPfgfsK2z0vkONQPlFo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.74.66 with SMTP id r2mr3794163obv.67.1324302979043; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.74.136 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:56:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15432@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <4ED94590.3090902@ogud.com> <4ED954A2.8090708@dougbarton.us> <EEAE3014-48B5-4344-B253-7A2269447EA5@cisco.com> <20111204055236.GB19382@vacation.karoshi.com.> <A48F2510-A84D-461B-AA9C-8BA29B8503F0@rfc1035.com> <20111204232556.GA30268@vacation.karoshi.com.> <7A0435E4-C0D0-4D0B-A6C0-B2704B8AFFC3@rfc1035.com> <20111205023930.GA30651@vacation.karoshi.com.> <20111205033509.GC84440@shinkuro.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15432@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:56:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiafbWzcK4A6kpivDXw4=fcRPLbo2RkaWHqpSDVPsEqHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044470d1a4100404b472506b"
Cc: "dnsext@ietf.org" <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] the DNS Directorate and the end of dnsext
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:56:20 -0000

The problem with the DNS Directorate arose out of an occasion when it
actually was used by a DNSEXT chair to overrule the consensus of the WG.

There is history there and no, I will keep bringing it up till I get an
apology.

The DNS Directorate is the reason that DNSSEC did not deploy in 2002.


We already have ICANN, we do not need even more self perpetuating cabals in
this space. They are particularly dangerous in the DNS space because there
is a de-facto monopoly (ICANN) which is not a technical organization and
may well prefer to rely on the DNS Directorate for informal advice and
treat it as IETF input.

There is not so much of a problem in other parts of the IETF as the IETF
has no veto power over progress. If I have a disagreement with the security
directorate (say) they have no power to block my protocol (other than
pointing out that ROT 13 is maybe not a strong enough cipher for credit
card numbers (say)).


Directorates are usually vehicles for explaining necessary expertise to
other parts of the IETF. In the case of Security this is inevitable. We got
into a mess with XML which makes it necessary to have review there as well.
If it is still necessary to have a DNS directorate then DNSEXT has not done
the job it needs to.



On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com>wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dnsext-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 7:35 PM
> > To: dnsext@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dnsext] the DNS Directorate and the end of dnsext
> >
> > The Directorate's composition will, I suppose, perhaps need adjustment,
> > because two of its members (Olafur and me) will disappear:
> > our roles are ex-officio, and in the event there's no office, there's
> > no office to be out of.
>
> You could become regular members, depending on what their rites of passage
> for admission are.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/