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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 19 February 2014 04:25 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 21F2C1A030F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:25:05 -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 0iRQaM0WaqkC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:25:03 -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 B2F301A0129 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:25:03 -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 s1J4OeGw006431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:24:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1392783891; bh=3oCdE7q9Km10nhsRCBWg2WUSKYevHTDI6GPEouGoi64=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MXXa1RsJ0WsXqsHcuIncrNQOSmk6diY2OPICf3J+766KHVc7MiuC+1BGd2r2Arcek K+3vF5WUhc0CqCnvYz+IAeT0js6dPvxqR69N4yMy9tmc8xKD2v50xxoB4SNsOJsqvr E+GT2lwznWSpyp5mtwYhbT7a2g6wkHNDyprbpWpw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1392783891; i=@resistor.net; bh=3oCdE7q9Km10nhsRCBWg2WUSKYevHTDI6GPEouGoi64=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=g21AFKoFp1E3RyT87vLlsAAA4nYMwMg+rv2NnV1vtR0DavVfIraL1G0C7BH7gx8FV vC7j2/HF/mqYBUbeovbiCe1KBPPkhBDW91F1u8b0y7Z63kpBtlogBpeamar3hqzpQ/ k9ySxj4MJ9YOtzWO5L0OWAlhgonWiyTb9GXsDbd0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140218192425.0b333900@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:41:09 -0800
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <5B5AE40C-6D26-419C-A16A-392AF2C33446@hopcount.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> <6.2.5.6.2.20140218074550.0c380cc8@resistor.net> <5B5AE40C-6D26-419C-A16A-392AF2C33446@hopcount.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dTL2VrOetmHzqDFKrsBMo0WkEOE
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, 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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 04:25:05 -0000

Hi Joe,
At 10:58 18-02-2014, Joe Abley wrote:
>I had some experience with this recently with the document that 
>became RFC 7043.
>
>Code-point assignment was swift. Implementation in major nameservers 
>was swift (although one or two of them left the types commented out 
>in the source until the RFC was published). The RFC publication 
>process was not arduous, even given the privacy concerns with this 
>particular proposal.
>
>I appreciate that knowing the process made things easier (mainly; I 
>was wrong about some things and had to be educated). But I would not 
>describe the process as difficult, and certainly not insurmountable.

I was not thinking of the IETF process.  Mark Andrews covered what I 
was thinking of in a message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg11173.html

Regards,
-sm