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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 18 February 2014 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 A87E81A0400 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 pDTqjtvWuGGw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9D51A03CE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:15:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1IHFEEL017139 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:15:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1392743720; bh=zd5jjUtNu0Z4BCK2UZLM4jFjuHFKQjAaUZmrVLkmTaA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Lg7cN8ZxUIz7ZWqPJTZXarqnrSR9Uf6GTE8uzfE8O/XnfOacJxOTzqityh2y95pCn StvyI/iCGYSVLrjFtwBr5QuNWHMrIbg2k3lFT1z9qDdntjQNWScvg0YTqk1d0831+D FbQOTMacFkTn28i5iG9j8zuP9vInGPwKb2y1rFPU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1392743720; i=@resistor.net; bh=zd5jjUtNu0Z4BCK2UZLM4jFjuHFKQjAaUZmrVLkmTaA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=2TAPcw6YuEJQoEXrFpRwgY33gSMWkqM8XAZjrsavPeGKwripoLkEBsiasn+UPd7SI HgdphkIpTqhOC5aOjvO0IrsDZOcwNBtEb/aEHfFMo2iHwqZJx+I9JzK3ak5uulZYtQ rTcM/s72gffJUlJA5/pWAfLzdBZ7Q4dXNKsvVjsY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140218081053.0c37dad0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:19:23 -0800
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140217164408.GC27215@mx1.yitter.info>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/U61ORkC7qznqw7Wq98vnl8Sl2eE
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 17:15:26 -0000

Hi Andrew,
At 08:44 17-02-2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>I am not convinced that DNS belongs in the Internet area.  It's an
>application.  I think if we need a place to discuss broader DNS
>innovation, then it should be in Applications.

To say it differently, DNS has a higher impact on applications work 
than work in other areas.  My guess is that things won't get any 
better if DNS is in the Applications Area.  The issue is cross-area 
reviews.  It is a problem when reviews are not being done [1].

Regards,
-sm

1. There are likely good reasons for that.