[DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 8D6A61B37C0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:07:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 x1I3FXL3kmiA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:07:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18271B2FE8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:07:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1787F107AE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:07:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SNPUPFLy7Ik for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (c-73-142-157-135.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.142.157.135]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 417631066A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:07:33 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20151218180733.GZ3294@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <1880287.khLzgcvgCq@linux-85bq.suse> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512162310550.11575@bofh.nohats.ca> <5558437.kJynxENqMX@linux-85bq.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5558437.kJynxENqMX@linux-85bq.suse>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rdHKhE8QPCgESIq0zAZNeq1xEdg>
Subject: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:07:38 -0000

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:36:00PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> this is the new era of "anything goes" for DNS protocol development. as with client subnet, no 
> matter how bad an idea is, if someone is already doing it, then the ietf documents that use.
> 

I am getting a little tired of this description.  If it's "anything
goes" then we can just give up and go home.

Some people don't like client subnet.  I'm not too convinced that the
architectural arguments against it are so good, but that's a different
debate.

I'm much more concerned about snide remarks dismissing the serious
efforts of people as "anything goes".  I think it's unfair, I think it
pretends access to a trancendental goodness that (I am prepared to say
_a priori_) no participant here has, and I think it needlessly
disparages the good faith efforts of many people to make the Internet
better in an environment where we don't all agree about what "better"
is.  I think many of us stand improvement (I here include myself) at
making our arguments less charged.

Best regards,

A (speaking, as usual, for myself only)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com