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

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 DA8F21A04C1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 Jl67G4d44N4F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6931A0101 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:18:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67EA1B81D8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C587A190052; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:18:36 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <B3F1600A-55DA-40E3-8CA1-F133A7A88966@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:18:34 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <6585245C-D54A-4068-8615-37188BD1D4D0@nominum.com>
References: <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> <20140218165710.GD27482@mx1.yitter.info> <B3F1600A-55DA-40E3-8CA1-F133A7A88966@gmail.com>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/TudmtoZHdbx3cBQDBJygF99rzAI
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:18:41 -0000

On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Is that a problem you (generically, not just Andrew) see as a concern? If so, do you see any general principles for navigating it? 

I certainly think it's an important concern.   We have the same problem with DHCP, which is a much simpler protocol.