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

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Mon, 17 February 2014 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.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 6F00A1A0103 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:15:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 VUJFrn14imyH for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alpha.virtualized.org (alpha.virtualized.org [199.233.229.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650731A012E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2319784B42; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:15:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from alpha.virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (alpha.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01442-08; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:15:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-67-169-100-133.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.100.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc@virtualized.org) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1190B8445C; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:15:18 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_44B1F99B-3B08-41FB-BB13-517A4DB93C41"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <9D53CD2A-B443-468B-9EB6-B934728DAF25@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:15:16 -0800
Message-Id: <915BC55A-FCB2-4C7D-AABA-E8BE8018D4CF@virtualized.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/PSjkCe9xaGSJVGwsLUqzSDrFowo
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 18:15:25 -0000

Ted,

On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>; wrote:
> If dnsop wants to do this work, that's fine.

Given the various topics being discussed in DNSOP and the relatively high interest/reviews/comments/etc being shown, I think DNSOP is working fine.

> 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 experiences, I have to wonder if the whole idea of a long-term working group just leads to dysfunction -- perhaps the IETF version of an echo chamber (or perhaps even inbreeding).  Perhaps a better approach would be to use something like DNSOP which has an operations bent is use to see if there are ideas/interest in particular topics that can drive the creation of working groups that focus on the specific DNS-related issues?

Regards,
-drc