Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?)
Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net> Sun, 20 December 2015 18:31 UTC
Return-Path: <vixie@tisf.net>
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 9AFA61B2F7B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:31:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=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 koA5HJnK544L for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 327361B2F79 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (unknown [24.104.150.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB9AF1CC1B; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:31:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:31:34 -0800
Message-ID: <2356548.sfrx6z2Xr5@linux-85bq.suse>
Organization: TISF
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.13-5-default; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <5676D3B6.6060909@bogus.com>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20151218180733.GZ3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676D3B6.6060909@bogus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart1548139.mRP0j8JL2P"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JBd59DwzhtkV68_RIf0lqoxm-Yc>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:31:36 -0000
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 08:13:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote: > > I think we dramatically better off, if we are willing to critically > consider the implications of proposals someplace and expose the record > of that, and I don't have a better location on offer then here. i was not trying to stifle discussion. what a wg chair told me was that the essence of a dnsop rfc was, "if you're trying to accomplish thing X, here's one way to do it." sadly for me, because of the ietf's imprimatur, such specifications will be used in industry as if they were recommendations. in the specific example of edns client subnet, i have previously supplied extensive technical argument against the systemic costs of expanding the Q-tuple in this way. those arguments did not find consensus in the WG, and are not reflected in the draft. see also "afasterinetnet.com". -- P. Vixie
- [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in… Shane Kerr
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Shumon Huque
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Shane Kerr
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tony Finch