Re: [dnsext] DNSEXT closing down soon

Um you are saying that it is now not possible to advance at all? The three
step process has been broken for years but it should not be that broken.

Working Groups are meant to close down, that is the objective: propose some
specs, work on them, shut down.

Lingering WGs are bad for many reasons, not least the fact that some of
them seem to find more work for the purpose of delaying closure. Often this
is work that is simply better not done. This is a particular problem with a
group like PKIX which has established a 'brand' in the industry. Some
vendors feel they have to send people to PKIX just to block new boondoggles
that would be added to the PKIX spec and then be forced to implement. So
even though the mission of PKIX is to maintain PKIX, it can't even close
obvious errors in the protocol because some people will object on
'principle'.

Of course that particular problem is worse due to the $1 billion the US DoD
spent on their PKI.

DNSEXT was set up to address one particular aspect of DNS infrastructure.
Those aspects are done about as well as we can expect.

The areas where the DNS needs to be tweaked are the interface between the
DNS and the application layer. DNSEXT is not well suited to consider that
problem as very few participants in the WG are applications developers.
Shutting down DNSEXT provides an opportunity to recruit a new group of
participants for an effort focused on the application layer.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 10:28:51PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> > Isn't it a well known problem of IETF standardization process
> > to require irrational amount of effort to advance PS to DS and
> > DS to IS?
>
> It would indeed require a great deal of effort now, since that
> advancement path is no longer open.
>
> > DNSSEC is a real extension? You should be joking.
>
> Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of DNSSEC, it was in fact
> a change to the protocol and in that sense an extension of
> capabilities.  Other things we have been working on are actually
> document cleanup or maintenance of existing capabilities (like adding
> new EDNS0 options or new algorithms to DNSSEC).
>
> Best,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>

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