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

Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> Sun, 16 February 2014 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 549131A0105 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:41:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ga7OjxOUooCa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19D31A00F0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ix-2.local (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD4E02032D; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:41:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5300EA24.7090301@frobbit.se>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:41:08 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <paf@frobbit.se>
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 <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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> <784CF51A-937B-4131-85BC-AED579FA746D@vpnc.org> <5300E9C5.9090702@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <5300E9C5.9090702@frobbit.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5CjqvXKuwxpS5kBmnRwvp7i0mpJGFuUR5"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pP_OTEDSMsg7009-m6mgb3wllu4
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:41:13 -0000

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 <paf@frobbit.se> 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
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>