Re: [dnsext] draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Mon, 14 February 2011 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5EA3A6D6D for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wysa2XcCET1g for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA8A3A6C99 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38C401ECB41D for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:41:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:40:58 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110214174058.GD71863@shinkuro.com>
References: <4D48617E.1020408@ogud.com> <3A5CD55E5CCE43F0BA44AAC89BADB866@ics.forth.gr> <20110211020125.GA147@bikeshed.isc.org> <F5CC3C0B5F464E63A4154F62B9BFFDD1@ics.forth.gr> <20110214071047.GA64679@bikeshed.isc.org> <15CC617D3D244626A6B31600701E9A81@ics.forth.gr> <20110214163742.GC71863@shinkuro.com> <20110214165705.GA76894@bikeshed.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110214165705.GA76894@bikeshed.isc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-yao-dnsext-identical-resolution-02 comment
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 14 Feb 2011 17:40:38 -0000

No hat

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 04:57:05PM +0000, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> But the other thing we haven't talked about much is the actual
> requirements for solutions. We did once (in Anaheim maybe?) but IIRC
> only the once.

Yes, I fully agree.  But what that amounts to are parameters for the
trade-offs we need to make, and that _again_ requires WG discussion
and so on.  When the WG doesn't discuss such issues, it makes me think
that it isn't that interested.  That's all I meant.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.