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

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Wed, 19 February 2014 01:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 242CF1A01FC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:29:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ArsZsxEiFaYO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504AA1A0166 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ld10so17590177pab.38 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:29:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=J0kcHQYoT4zPR1Ll+HW0TshyQujt/NNHOz5QznCrQdw=; b=cc00CJ5bdjIuFWRdl2sxGQ/V+oPhk7N6hT3MXOu3E3LWxKeumTAe5shATZOOCu2ZX0 9NBQ4fipRrMo4d7ENXRN/djM6Pji4NMNFYXFPKdPJkghivga/0T1GPE6X1bCiVWXfENS gSomMf9lQiiTUeuoKQtw9yq702+EE5lYcRkl/T/mHoudgEV4ZohRMsjeg7tuvpAdRgP0 CPp8ENdSKtZW9W+i57s0rKG+wMZU2TN9E9OAhKRZ7TJUKjFzScpnOXlK+UXkhzGe47A4 bEwkdQUCHC31C0zVjHKvv6h1kqhbxN/JVIHBxRvjvGe7IjrcJyraTECH7N9ghYntkJht py1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnpk+OWMMXH/oPMlBa1xRLeAng1etoHczsG8ulnJ14tOJtZTaCooUxBHw6ID6Hrh6t6jIdL
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.201.226 with SMTP id kd2mr13432923pbc.157.1392773383319; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.88.203 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:29:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:9d8d:b63a:d95f:d2a0]
In-Reply-To: <20140218234946.10461.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
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> <6.2.5.6.2.20140218074550.0c380cc8@resistor.net> <5B5AE40C-6D26-419C-A16A-392AF2C33446@hopcount.ca> <20140218221948.D7541F9EB9C@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140218234946.10461.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:29:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn3FSNEterut_mMtWBzoEPPjoi-EFbiEjcP9UG6n7f9qiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c37ac40f1104f2b8522f
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xFcG4eZrF2apFvJNJhi3C-Uu8rM
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:29:48 -0000

in OID space, It was my experience that Russ ran the registry pretty
open-minded. Its a classic dewey-decimal growing numberfield, so the cost
burden of carving out a new OID is low, and he was minded to ask basic
questions, steer you, but in the end, assign a unique value for the wider
public benefit.

is there a quality to the RR registry that it HAS TO HAVE a high barrier to
entry? I've never tried proposing a new RR. I don't understand if, compared
to OID, it has a higher compliance, consequence, risk-side..

-G