Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a side-meeting on services centralization at IETF 104 Prague

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 14 March 2019 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A20A12AF7B for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ooyP3g00Pl5k for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462B3130E58 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c189so3719269qke.6 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=9RhQuBRoW+L57GUaCZ5g1nT2r212F+kBW64X5b0O0Qk=; b=Wc4k2RD/2LynqJoZxy+ecSMZZ+uMuHpDFQssyv9z1/wwaXuVBNAl5qRwGPg19tpvWQ IPRNsaooceN/WCKAsL9Qz2rPXcjJZuHSbv4FX3WEBDLWWZxvB/gHVDailF68VYCfcxkM CeS2smRjxyTMZ2dPkVRNSom3PZ/VO/GIKTgv+Vd7P/BVPpxnndHpV0bu8/N2/9ArD19f GhQ4l8qcL2GAwyUCMEPoyFDIbDNXYPks90/9uXZT/8wHDMJH9IK72BfoBjrlFTokmuXY 63PEWb98MpGXuaGDJmTpSEwrOlMn6eB9JcxuaTatcSgfgs4+T8x3/xRAEKj4t609N3kV HSpg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=9RhQuBRoW+L57GUaCZ5g1nT2r212F+kBW64X5b0O0Qk=; b=au+p45TdNBulfEtPmq8X6cJL/WaAzNJwPdJT1a3tu5V5YwW5bDrJ6bfdJQLMledUWk T948SzZD1jq7aQMlNkk1AgUJTJRCREukuRnOZGqQ4qeLztFrBKnW5d5Zdewo5Hmh5CLv 2S/tzeumpEZxVKH9kqIq6Kenx3EDu9hv0GZMHnHtNBz+xxHIy38kj9YigRGhdoMCW24B QpY1YZCs1tYClDwx14aY376gCpTKkQHfcgSRrslhP3UQuvruFtElKjA1uhipAsobOpG1 IYpHu1QXwJPpHf2pb1BVD8BiPSgv4VIgXNiI1WOLjqGZW77h/SekLmDIor1Zey02JVWl aQ5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVda/cYgB9HB6dQf1mnvis7ypvmiwpvFiFEAetmmMx1nBKVY/SN 1qcl60OgUUlFDumgORzxLhrsrQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqww1CbK5SFgIv274wCL/z8IokJK0oQYorrT2k59laDmE9IUcdZaQ+VNeHbivyXEhc22iFopvg==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:8dc5:: with SMTP id p188mr36870776qkd.330.1552581237092; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n201sm90220qka.10.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 09:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7F672512-CDB8-49F2-BE3F-0ACAD2D4D1D1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.2\))
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:33:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Paul Vixie <>,,,, Vittorio Bertola <>,
To: Ralf Weber <>
References: <> <> <> <2044747.4WdMZHU4Qz@linux-9daj> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.2)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a side-meeting on services centralization at IETF 104 Prague
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:34:03 -0000

On Mar 14, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Ralf Weber <> wrote:
> Well as you said it is something that will not get consensus at the IETF, so why work on that? However as you said these RDNS control planes exist in real life and even if there is no IETF standard for it, the IETF should consider actual deployments when doing work and not just IETF standards IMHO and that is what the drafts out there trying to do, bring the view of people operating these services into the IETF.

Sorry, I expressed myself fairly poorly.

What I mean is that it’s important to agree on what we are talking about before we try to talk about it, because otherwise a lot of useless back-and-forth happens where one person is arguing from one set of assumptions, and another person is arguing from a different set of assumptions, and neither is able to feel heard.

It can feel very political to go meta on a discussion like this, but I think it’s important for people to actually agree on what the various views are of the problem and solution spaces.   That is, not agree that this problem is the correct view of the problem, or that that solution is the correct solution to a problem, but to enumerate all the views of the problem that various participants have, and enumerate all the solutions to these various problems that people are interested in.

With that overview, a winnowing process is possible; without it, we just have endless non-terminal discussion.