IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 16:10 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 DB2CD1A06A7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:10:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 VHcYBQMX7Xya for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:10:21 -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 C96391A04FB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:10:21 -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 s1IG9wJg007233 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:10:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1392739812; bh=flT90q4UL7wTOtIxyNxBR8sQJaAOHiiaz6k4Sd9Lpa8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3Rdm87zbe/CJCpO9yhJZo7T+2GD+5K6VRQCHP0EWYuBrLgNhgPTPZPEHOiK+5R5j+ DWVPSULffTULuaumgVdHiZNMGaOpvSKjHdCtVdh7DjFPg8YoR3UTwqJwvYiwHuYk17 W+TD5jZ3QtzXdnYogrK1ROOrabS/iuZeCDo4yLl4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1392739812; i=@resistor.net; bh=flT90q4UL7wTOtIxyNxBR8sQJaAOHiiaz6k4Sd9Lpa8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jJGxOi77Xq394i1KoYciwaw1weN8A6fC6KXph7obrxqyZ4b8m8UwkBIwpQFito6Ae ccsLWkU29zArt1lyrlw9Ak8tmQ4TPLS3wk3mtE0x4PNETCxuX20zACIBlmBok1hz3g blPrX7kSv+J+CFC9wGFkEHrk4dL8FXU2uGxzZEI8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140218074550.0c380cc8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:54:52 -0800
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <53006595.5010207@frobbit.se>
References: <CAESS1RPh+UK+r=JzZ9nE_DUqcvNtZiS6TNt1CDN-C0uiU7HP=A@mail.gmail.com> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aKLfb51lfyVXsWofYlrKzP8V1fU
Cc: 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:10:23 -0000

Hi Patrik,
At 23:15 15-02-2014, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>The largest problem for IETF and DNS innovation is that the consensus in
>IETF seems to be that innovation of DNS is not possible unless it
>involves reuse of the TXT resource record.

In other words, it is only possible to use one of 
the code points as the people being part of the 
consensus do not work on getting code running. :-)

Seriously, it may take some effort to get things 
deployed but that is not an insurmountable task 
[1].  One of the problems is that there isn't any money in doing that.

>Unless that is put to rest, we can not do much at all.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

1. I actually looked into it some time back.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email