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

Patrik Fältström <> Sun, 16 February 2014 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85341A002C for <>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:39:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Y6UeEmAHUyo for <>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F031A00F0 for <>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ix-2.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 979701FF55; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:39:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:39:33 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fs1tR17aUmxgV8HWN3p3JbgXEwrXQBTci"
Cc: dnsop <>
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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:39:43 -0000

On 2014-02-16 16:52, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:15 PM, Patrik Fältström <> 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.