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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 17 February 2014 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 A071A1A054C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 fU48fdtynYYW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735561A053A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s1HIcf50011139 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:38:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-67.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.67] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <9D53CD2A-B443-468B-9EB6-B934728DAF25@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:41 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3327F09A-8A9E-4F07-A093-8551DBF87067@vpnc.org>
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>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JLMyCZAir8_AsJfgq3RIfaUiOlc
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 18:38:58 -0000

On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>; wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote:
>> Why shouldn't that work go on in the WGs that want the innovations in
>> question?  Why shouldn't people who know about the DNS involve
>> themselves in the protocols that want to use these innovations so
>> that, instead of being Defenders of the Protocol Faith, they are
>> engineers trying to solve practical engineering problems that others
>> have, but in a way consistent with the deployed architecture?
> 
> Sure.   If dnsop wants to do this work, that's fine.
> 
> As for the dysfunction of the dnsext working group, I agreed to close it because as an incoming AD I wasn't entirely clear on what to do when the chairs requested that it be closed.   If I had it to do over, I would probably instead have solicited new chairs and tried to fix the dysfunction, which I agree existed there.
> 
> Unfortunately, the dysfunction will arise wherever DNS improvements are suggested, so not trying to fix it is not an option.   And of course I realize that many good IETF contributors have been ground to a nubbin trying to fix the aforementioned dysfunction, and have no particular reason to think I would have been more able to fix it than my predecessors.

Given your second paragraph, why create a new WG which will be an attractive nuisance? Andrew's proposal of letting WGs that want the innovations seems less likely to rekindle the dysfunction.

(Disclaimer: I an co-chair of a non-DNS WG that is fully manifesting the "lack of interest to even review WG items that people said they wanted" dysfunction that we are speaking of. And I want to shut it down.)

--Paul Hoffman