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

Paul Hoffman <> Mon, 17 February 2014 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A071A1A054C for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fU48fdtynYYW for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735561A053A for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (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
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:38:41 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: dnsop <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] meta issue: WG to discuss DNS innovation (was Re: draft-hzhwm-start-tls-for-dns-00)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:38:58 -0000

On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan <> 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