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

[Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-02-16 16:52, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:15 PM, Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> > On 2014-02-16 03:04, David Conrad wrote:
>>> >> Perhaps DNSOP actually is the DNS innovation WG (if perhaps only as a seeding ground)?
>> > 
>> > 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.
>
> Sorry, friend, but this is trolling. Or do you believe that DANE is not an innovation?

I think so, and I like DANE, I am all in favor of innovation, but I see
strong forces against DANE, inside IETF.

Yes, I am just starting to investigate and try to mitigate, but the
forces against are the ones I see too often:

- We can not use new RR Types, lets use A and TXT
- DNSSEC will never take off
- Lets just use HTTP for transport

My point is that to get innovation, we have to over and over and over
again address these issues.

Ok, I take Daves point that there is no consensus from a process
definition of consensus in the IETF, but the _feeling_ is that there is
consensus as there is no consensus that we CAN add new RR-Types etc.

Just look at the SPF discussion, or the cert-for-secure-xmpp which is
what I refer to regarding "we can not use DANE as DNSSEC is not deployed".

I see too many similarities between the two.

And as I wrote, I claim those views block innovation more than anything
else in IETF at the moment.

   Patrik