Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 03 August 2016 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B904F12DCD0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 9fgZCEh-0STR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 076F012DD55 for <IETF@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id b199so164748389lfe.0 for <IETF@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wxajiVvsp2eKIvTVjZRfdBMbktSWCGomlb7d+xpFucM=; b=NpUeRp9hi/3A+dQFw3b0kl+tYbQxKfsEJqHe01i2hXdLJmc0HwWNiMhHls3YTA4kop J67oRoNNgqMTrNHev8GlwemCJmLKsHvZF69MddHGpe2hMB9bALsjRU2GCRxWpcnXDEb2 +13UvLygFLx6nPYyU4svekAs5aHXHAzDh3WGsA+ovkXIYVGQuLzcopgsvQqcmXCMI6Tj mfQ/9m/OSL5lpuxpOQMiej1hOBuUSE2fexJu0D2aw1xBBQign+zyXrYufVcNOsFzemfN tlkZWFovIOypRY2Ut1tJT2rREh7phwxNTCsS+Z8FFgie0W7Foa+K463ywWUvcbzguNRC PzxA==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wxajiVvsp2eKIvTVjZRfdBMbktSWCGomlb7d+xpFucM=; b=NN6pm4kmi1ZuarvY0q7SDG+hEZgfg8KpLajtScm/vgSU1pS9d9TkKNJbGbZ9cSQoab bHV36PgLFsPABP5FM4yiq3KS8jL8KeKkCCwZi3gdVvs6v/sKxxRQUmmxDVc2G66Kh7kM JWqH4fcKBcD2JM+HG8DZoI0XJOjNVfHrK2W9pliEjUibIRMPjbQeIagG/ppLSra9z8bU QXkFfaHqRaPcA4eja/YdX0V9ZbvzW9NtnwueAechHbiIND4w9Fl0XsQOuliQItHhhf0f g/CE/XTWqXUjVJHH95PLJclIyu2Pb2geAMW55eaycunFk7UHt7A1OWzVrcdTNtx3NjWy Jk1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuWEQyC5OrXwQlq2rlfVwp9FA0+YhaVIDAftfPMvOdyTgKV9d0bPVrCkDSTaILJ8+4eN4wARC0Y6y/2/g==
X-Received: by 10.25.26.194 with SMTP id a185mr23229130lfa.167.1470240191015; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 09:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c1e67076-1c20-2a1f-b0b8-6911163f9f62@dcrocker.net>
References: <20150720192219.53802.qmail@ary.lan> <55ADF2A7.3080403@cisco.com> <A0418F96-1D79-4BE9-A72A-7A47641E4AF3@gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1apWx2M7V-O6ea2kvor7Di6=jYMh-uY2ouTsgjkV6vLw@mail.gmail.com> <20150722084204.GA15378@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAKr6gn2413-2XW8d_stw0dTmP-KsmGgFgQ3tVXEgXrXmnCiQow@mail.gmail.com> <6E97605B-C11E-4349-90FC-109E4983112C@istaff.org> <45F6578D-BA19-4333-8935-C954BBD9AEE8@nominum.com> <F8B1240553F1ED877E42F66D@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55B1B122.4040901@dcrocker.net> <7AC6C31C6AAB067BB8D2605B@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <55B1BCA5.9020903@dcrocker.net> <D1D7BBA4.2AE3A%richard@shockey.us> <c1e67076-1c20-2a1f-b0b8-6911163f9f62@dcrocker.net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:02:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nhrJSAw38HETLkE9aqhL=b9eVYSOD1dqdyvBmDG7ZSjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the names that aren't DNS names problem, was Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-onion-tld-00.txt>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11403bd852013405392cf801
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fz81SquzoW-FB8NP6usJ5TCh0BM>
Cc: ietf <IETF@ietf.org>, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 16:06:10 -0000

It took ten years to get RFC6762 and RFC6763 published.   Very little work
was done during that time, in comparison to the amount of time spent.

.onion went comparatively quickly, because a different SDO lit a fire under
our feet.

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 7/24/2015 6:58 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
>> The cost problem is getting out of hand around
>> here, but the real causation is endless process delays.
>>
>
>
> I believe someone around here did an analysis of the allocation of
> calendar time, for various parts of the sequence to create a proposed
> standard.
>
> I certainly agree that process overhead could be better and probably much
> better, but I hope no one is surprised to hear that the analysis showed
> that deliberations by the IESG, IETF Last Call, and even RFC Editor
> handling are usually a small fraction of the calendar budget.
>
> Working groups often think nothing of taking years to develop something
> that probably could have been done in months, if the working group
> seriously thought the issue urgent and were willing to create and sustain
> serious focus on solving the issue that prompted creation of the effort.
>
> I'll bet one could generate a number of legitimate examples amongst the
> current inventory of working groups, if one wanted to...
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
>