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

Andrew Sullivan <> Tue, 18 February 2014 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C0D1A0510 for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:57:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WiSBiYbw8Gnu for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BD41A0228 for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B51F68A031 for <>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:57:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:57:10 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:57:19 -0000

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:57:40PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Sure.   If dnsop wants to do this work, that's fine.

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.  

If the goal is a "Get off my lawn" working group, then big generic
questions are in order.  But I think we can do better.


Andrew Sullivan