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

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> 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