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

Olafur Gudmundsson <> Mon, 17 February 2014 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDB11A0275 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:58:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zmQ56tA6Wic7 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714E21A012E for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 16EA550150; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:58:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by (Authenticated sender: with ESMTPSA id 5DBF650089; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:58:37 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:58:37 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: dnsop WG <>, Paul Wouters <>, Dave Crocker <>, David Conrad <>
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 18:58:47 -0000

On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Paul Wouters <> wrote:
>> DNSOP needs
>> to broaden its charter, or we need to revive some kind of DNSEXT group.
> We would need to find some volunteers to act as co-chair.   I don't think adding the work to the DNSOP charter is the right thing to do, although I am not wedded to that position.   I just suspect that (a) it will make life in DNSOP harder and (b) we will get better review in an intarea working group.   But that's a fairly artificial point to be making, so argue away!   :)

I think recreating DNS WG is a bad idea. 
We have a few ideas on the table in various that are related to 
	a) DNS transport TCP, SCTP, "tree answer: give me all records need to answer/validate X starting from point above X", 
	Zone transfer improvements 
	aa) DNS "privacy" ie. channel encryption/authentication 
	b) Operational Automation 
	c) Keeping noise out of DNS (AS112) and name spaces/meta-tld/alt TLD.
	d) New protocols adopting DANE
	e) Name server control protocols 

a) and aa) should have its own short term WG 
b) Belongs in DNSOP 
c) is above DNSEXT and DNSOP wg it is more of an intersection of many different areas like RAI, APPS, 
OPS and SECURITY  ==> a special WG 
d) DANE WG is handling that 
d) Domain boundaries BOF may turn into a WG. 
e) Belongs in DNSOP 

So Yes I see a need for a focused DNS protocol wg at this time.
The problem with long lived groups is you never know when new useful work will show up,
killing groups or just the threat of killing a WG seems to bring out innovation.