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 17:39, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> 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,

What I mean is that I *DO* think DANE is an innovation!

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>