Re: [DNSOP] meta issue: WG to discuss DNS innovation (was Re: draft-hzhwm-start-tls-for-dns-00)

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD39F1A0325 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:16:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DwPTdmQKFE1m for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x231.google.com (mail-qa0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0837E1A0317 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:16:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w8so20771018qac.22 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:16:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rlXy+Q2FW0rU51xR0vH7FeVm2UqVCqQCOKJurFg/HZQ=; b=e0U9NH0jMqnaU0qrdxqAWPC5uaQnxJIMorAFWGoJhqQf2jLIvRfhTSB/FumkJN20Xn jxO9wjaR2qC3SbQxYxePwscGWQ5gC1aTwoclblxznBoCUs80Fby2M0C2Y1c3j/EPwLFC o7O5blm99SZS13afDPuQEE4/X0ljOmqnROtAHZQuBHxdgBenNg2VIi0sMY9py7id5Upg hlXH7Uc3o0hr5Tz9ZbyVDRLT1qhsAIDYZgTtFtkFbEBwuTfyFjQDC1s45/fg5C9DBaF0 xPfnxjO6OHpLiOP3mCrYUEiuSboHDgdyjNXoyKJHkUZpFPoTiVZaFDnGjKuaHXzIqHAj UVJg==
X-Received: by 10.224.172.133 with SMTP id l5mr31684138qaz.25.1392603374573; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from still.local (184-19-89-76.drr03.clbg.wv.frontiernet.net. [184.19.89.76]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 110sm19848775qgv.19.2014.02.16.18.16.13 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <530170EC.7080305@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:16:12 -0500
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/27.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CAESS1RPh+UK+r=JzZ9nE_DUqcvNtZiS6TNt1CDN-C0uiU7HP=A@mail.gmail.com> <52FEF407.30405@redbarn.org> <20140215140133.GA6990@sources.org> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402151449280.23619@bofh.nohats.ca> <D82F49E8-9A06-4F52-8E3E-DF5C8D0B7549@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <D82F49E8-9A06-4F52-8E3E-DF5C8D0B7549@virtualized.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/2TVdI2dSs5Egq63F8LRNuMCxXIk
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] meta issue: WG to discuss DNS innovation (was Re: draft-hzhwm-start-tls-for-dns-00)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:16:21 -0000

On 2/15/14, 9:04 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> [perpass dropped from ccs]
>
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> At ietf87 it was planned to  have a discussion at dnsop about this
>> continued problem of drafts that fall between operations and extensions
>> and the fact that dnsext closed down. Nothing happened at ietf87 or
>> ietf88. I hope to see this as agenda item for dnsop this meeting.
>>
>> We need a WG to discuss DNS innovation.
> At the Vancouver DNSOP meeting when there was some discussion I thought was protocol development related, I got up to the mike asked if DNSOP was the right place for that discussion, being righteously indignant that DNSOP would discuss something non-operational.  However, after sitting down someone pointed out to me that one of the common recurrent complaints about the IETF is that operators tend to get excluded and that maybe DNSOP is actually the best place to discuss DNS protocol development since that's where operators go.
>
> Perhaps DNSOP actually is the DNS innovation WG (if perhaps only as a seeding ground)?
>
>
As the co-chair or DNSOP who took this rather liberal view of our 
charter, I attempted to use the focus be the 'operational impacts' of 
several of the proposals, such at Mr. Wouter's too on tcp keepalives and 
query chaining.  I do believe it was the right thing to do, and I 
continue to do so.  We had great discussion on the topic and while 
nothing could be agreed on, there was some solid advice to take back on 
the issues.

One of the things we've been discussing internally (and have been 
negligent in bringing forward to the group) with our glorious ADs is 
expanding the charter.

tim