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

Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <suzworldwide@gmail.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 5AFFB1A0653 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 myBPhB7edjGr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413641A06A0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x13so25584588qcv.6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=gAUgoa9WMInQ84hXKxk2VUdvgZIOmuX9o98AiiFToQM=; b=pMeeWsGDhN+25MCCaZhmnqCltRRWrxvqUDXYTya3WKdIiSR9WWbeOcggmeOCzEguAp 4avbh+HjQfkd3gHm/sqF8F1p9CLeT2lsUSnLIkdLlcW2po9M3cJDMGu/5gAnSZkbPMtw upPBScOsND+jlZ40erDMrQTZXrUufU+J3ygClp9J9KrbnZMBRyv1Um2RJxGsLgD170mS y6XNILUbNZ+2VzCwBycCHpDBzqVVkeL/RunGQLKq0GqPUyDgHe68ft8tcU5Dil/jZdsz sTcTjbC39kvgcMTiLxZZXi0OPBNIuopHU+wA7gi8BUHbxezJNE8rPneAaG3rvZ8C549z p1HA==
X-Received: by 10.224.169.11 with SMTP id w11mr12295257qay.71.1392743433224; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.15] (c-24-63-89-87.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.63.89.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z18sm16053092qab.5.2014.02.18.09.10.31 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140218165710.GD27482@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:10:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B3F1600A-55DA-40E3-8CA1-F133A7A88966@gmail.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>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/cOOYDaY0hePhNAF7BY2VCneLXcg
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 17:10:39 -0000

On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote:

> No.  This was precisely my point.  For most of the stuff people want,
> the work should be in a WG that does not have "DNS" in its name.
> That's the _key_ point.  We protocol weenies need to get out of our
> comfy chair and go learn why in the world people want to put
> _anything_ in the DNS.  Our failure to do that is how we ended up with
> the situation we have: we keep stamping our feet and saying that the
> DNS works _just fine_ with new RRTYPEs, for instance, except that many
> who want to use them cannot.
> 
> My view was that if there was something that was DNS-specific that
> needed attention, people should have a BoF.  And look!  We have 2 BoFs
> on specific DNS topics in London.  The questions are narrow and
> focussed, not big floppy "gee, this looks like DNS, so it should be
> swatted over to the DNS weenies" ones.  

I'm sympathetic to this view, assuming I actually understand it, but not entirely sure what it says in terms of our charter discussion: should DNSOP go away, continue to address specific topics per the current charter, or add some kind of v6ops-like requirements/coordination-with-the-people-who-really-have-the-problem function? 

As I see it, we have another problem, complementary to the one you're highlighting, which is the number of situations arising where working groups across the IETF want to do something that makes certain assumptions about, or demands upon, the DNS, without DNS protocol weenies in the room at all. This strikes me as….suboptimal.

Is that a problem you (generically, not just Andrew) see as a concern? If so, do you see any general principles for navigating it? 


thanks,
Suzanne