Re: Last Call: <draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-03.txt> (Resource Records for EUI-48 and EUI-64 Addresses in the DNS) to Proposed Standard

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:16AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
 
> So some review of the DNSEXT-specified procedures and
> expectations may be in order.

I encourage you, then, to organize the BOF session that will spin up
the WG to achieve this.  DNSEXT is only still alive because our last
document hasn't been published.

But more generally, as a practical matter it is better that people
register their stuff with us than that they don't.  We have, in the
wild, a used EDNS0 option code that is all over the Internet.  It is
undocumented, and the code point isn't actually registered.  That
state of affairs is surely worse than that the IETF didn't get to
provide good advice to authors.  DNSEXT already tried to be the DNS
cops, and has failed miserably, partly because of the usual
get-off-my-lawn crowd and partly because people unfamiliar with the
IETF find its procedures a little arcane.

My view is that we need to be more pragmatic.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]