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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 96B3B1A054D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:35:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 0BNp7RDGaUUk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4356F1A0549 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE2E1B80E5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:35:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B499C190052; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:35:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:35:50 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <915BC55A-FCB2-4C7D-AABA-E8BE8018D4CF@virtualized.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:35:47 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <DDBEF38A-CEA1-4816-BD2E-931AA2728A9B@nominum.com>
References: <52FEF407.30405@redbarn.org> <20140215140133.GA6990@sources.org> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402151449280.23619@bofh.nohats.ca> <D82F49E8-9A06-4F52-8E3E-DF5C8D0B7549@virtualized.org> <53006595.5010207@frobbit.se> <5300C10A.8010308@dcrocker.net> <5300C52A.9050802@frobbit.se> <5300E26B.4030301@dcrocker.net> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402161123090.27242@bofh.nohats.ca> <951E7F4B-81AC-43BB-B878-4266C5E00373@nominum.com> <20140217164408.GC27215@mx1.yitter.info> <9D53CD2A-B443-468B-9EB6-B934728DAF25@nominum.com> <915BC55A-FCB2-4C7D-AABA-E8BE8018D4CF@virtualized.org>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/53gAHLGIgEM4MbZaYBxx_SaFEl8
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
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 18:35:56 -0000

On Feb 17, 2014, at 1:15 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>; wrote:
> Given experiences, I have to wonder if the whole idea of a long-term working group just leads to dysfunction -- perhaps the IETF version of an echo chamber (or perhaps even inbreeding).  Perhaps a better approach would be to use something like DNSOP which has an operations bent is use to see if there are ideas/interest in particular topics that can drive the creation of working groups that focus on the specific DNS-related issues?

Yup.   However, creating working groups is a pretty heavyweight process—I think that's what motivates the long-term model for protocols where frequent extensions are likely.   Possibly rotating working group chairs more frequently would work in such cases.