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

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 17 February 2014 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF96F1A00B4 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:44:22 -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 aoMnadKf1EUx for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C801A0509 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E90768A031 for <>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:44:15 -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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:44:23 -0000

I am not convinced that DNS belongs in the Internet area.  It's an
application.  I think if we need a place to discuss broader DNS
innovation, then it should be in Applications.

But I also have pretty strong doubts that "DNS innovation" needs a
place for such discussion, on the grounds that when we _had_ such a WG
nobody did any work.  It was just a mailing list and WG for people to
say, "Get off my lawn."  Document reviews languished for months or
years.  LCs resulted in no comments. 

Why shouldn't that work go on in the WGs that want the innovations in
question?  Why shouldn't people who know about the DNS involve
themselves in the protocols that want to use these innovations so
that, instead of being Defenders of the Protocol Faith, they are
engineers trying to solve practical engineering problems that others
have, but in a way consistent with the deployed architecture?

Best regards,


On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:22:19AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2014, at 9:03 PM, Paul Wouters <> wrote:
> > DNSOP needs
> > to broaden its charter, or we need to revive some kind of DNSEXT group.
> We would need to find some volunteers to act as co-chair.   I don't think adding the work to the DNSOP charter is the right thing to do, although I am not wedded to that position.   I just suspect that (a) it will make life in DNSOP harder and (b) we will get better review in an intarea working group.   But that's a fairly artificial point to be making, so argue away!   :)
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list

Andrew Sullivan