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

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 06/20/2013 09:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.

I agree with at least a little of what each of Olafur, John, and Andrew 
have said; but I think there's a middle ground between "throw the doors 
wide open" and "everything we have tried before didn't work." At least I 
hope there is.

Perhaps we could have a non-WG mailing list so that people could submit 
proposals for review prior to the expert review process. Even some of 
the "get off my lawn" crowd offered good suggestions for this EUI case 
(make 1 record with a size field rather than 2 records) that could have 
made this whole process a lot smoother.

Doug