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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 17 February 2014 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 45A661A030C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:03:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 5tTUYIn0ScPD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE801A02E3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 18:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A30800AA; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:03:39 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1392602619; bh=IO8UHz3CB2Y2Yol5wd+XNrHDn9cC//v3NlHUkcMR2u4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=LSrzhORNPoiyhFgOu7j7BrUKvVyqoivQqXmjqB+3vLN4H0wVwXR0B2uTwOYcnl9di ValYxst3ECeYZy70y76ee6cxogQa8PWfmvIv1h7ouUqno2MxhEcg3iRK32VF+APL/I W0Esc95mifKcLUHzWBZe6VzmQAIQWbMx4bRtuu5c=
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s1H23bHw001743; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:03:37 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 21:03:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-Reply-To: <5300E26B.4030301@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402161123090.27242@bofh.nohats.ca>
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> <5300C10A.8010308@dcrocker.net> <5300C52A.9050802@frobbit.se> <5300E26B.4030301@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/d8rcFbbArfff9kEK5rcf8ZqmcUk
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:03:44 -0000

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 2/16/2014 6:03 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> I think this email make exactly my point.
>
> Please explain.
>
> By way of anticipating your response, I should not have removed your key 
> conclusion:
>
>     "Unless that is put to rest, we can not do much at all."
>
> That is demonstrably not true, as well as the claim of consensus about not 
> being able to do anything being wrong.

Needing TXT records is really a red herring. For instance, look at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wouters-dane-openpgp-02

and the implementation in:

https://github.com/letoams/openpgpkey-milter

(with supporting https://github.com/letoams/hash-slinger/blob/master/openpgpkey )

It uses a private use RRtype of 65280 and helps you create an RFC 3597
Generic Record type for records. At any time can now, I can ask for
an IANA registration - I've just waited a bit for a discussion and
WG adoption.

At no point in time did I need to use TXT records and at no point in
time did I need to modify DNS software. So yes, innovation via TXT record
has been put to rest a long long time ago.

The problem we have now is purely in process. During the last few IETF
meetings, I was always told I was a "guest" at DNSOPs, that it is the
wrong place for discussion about new RRtypes or EDNS options, and I've
been forced to use the DNSEXT mailing list of a closed WG. DNSOP needs
to broaden its charter, or we need to revive some kind of DNSEXT group.

So let's discuss WG scope and not TXT records.

Thanks,

Paul