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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 19 February 2014 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 4E3D51A03CF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:25:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 mKhiOo_k_JsK for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198F11A031B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187ACC9423; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:24:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1392776706; bh=xkcJ9VTPZn/amj/yTRpZDggpi1PXbB3hihwhMhhWAq8=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=kluze480JLm8PluahYvbB5fTz/+rLBzordSX9W9IcOlGdAX4bReit117mOHRJJLot WMObKSYhDtsFnVtMdy2dKaGPVFOh+L2zTzq0KCzfXOISfhPASC2S1IAvJd+D8rl+HY VzLrlytMj9ij1JI1eNPrYJ52wlqt2rIYyxxUrHvE=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:24:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E276116005C; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:25:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4408160035; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:25:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056ADFA91E9; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:24:50 +1100 (EST)
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.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> <53006595.5010207@frobbit.se> <6.2.5.6.2.20140218074550.0c380cc8@resistor.net> <5B5AE40C-6D26-419C-A16A-392AF2C33446@hopcount.ca> <20140218221948.D7541F9EB9C@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140218234946.10461.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> <CAKr6gn3FSNEterut_mMtWBzoEPPjoi-EFbiEjcP9UG6n7f9qiw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:29:43 +1000." <CAKr6gn3FSNEterut_mMtWBzoEPPjoi-EFbiEjcP9UG6n7f9qiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:24:50 +1100
Message-Id: <20140219022450.056ADFA91E9@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/E1wL1_O6Ajz4tC04Y_TXOSIVmA0
Cc: dnsop WG <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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 02:25:11 -0000

In message <CAKr6gn3FSNEterut_mMtWBzoEPPjoi-EFbiEjcP9UG6n7f9qiw@mail.gmail.com>;
, George Michaelson writes:
> 
> in OID space, It was my experience that Russ ran the registry pretty
> open-minded. Its a classic dewey-decimal growing numberfield, so the cost
> burden of carving out a new OID is low, and he was minded to ask basic
> questions, steer you, but in the end, assign a unique value for the wider
> public benefit.
> 
> is there a quality to the RR registry that it HAS TO HAVE a high barrier to
> entry? I've never tried proposing a new RR. I don't understand if, compared
> to OID, it has a higher compliance, consequence, risk-side..

What high barrier to entry?  Fill out a form and you get it basically
provided you meet the minimal criteria.  You can choose a experimental
type to test code with while you are waiting to the value to be assigned.

	http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6895
 
> -G
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org