IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 03 February 2013 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9FB21F8906 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:48:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vrP6fOrjTCfK for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C21521F884F for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUQ6U4MFWoVUTZ/cEDaMC2St0vrBub+dQ@postini.com; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:48:33 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2D91080A3 for <mif@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB84190043; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:48:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:48:32 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Thread-Topic: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
Thread-Index: AQHOAhiC0CZRnojC20SeBNCskG9mTphowXmAgAALy4CAAAyyAIAAANUAgAAAnwCAAAMZgA==
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:48:31 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747BEED@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAM+vMERak2vAoYFeSLRep2xjpm480qPjutyv4-tV=KtU0XO=fw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747479BA9@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAM+vMETvE==qUZO2_rhyUB+=ChUR4a9CoTCF+q=gBL2cRA+0UA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747BB1E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <510E8667.3020608@network-heretics.com> <510E910E.6090806@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747BDF8@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <510E9246.1070502@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <510E9246.1070502@network-heretics.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <44F80910C8811242BF9C6683A8E5473F@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] DNS selection with HE-MIF
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:48:33 -0000

On Feb 3, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> And IMO, it's far beyond a reasonable scope for this, or any, WG that is limited to a single area.  And perhaps a traditional IETF WG isn't the right structure for tackling this kind of problem.

This seems like a fairly nonsensical statement.   The IETF has areas, and working groups.   It is frequently the case that work being done in a working group affects more than one area.   The IETF has not burst into an explosion of pure energy as a result of the streams being crossed thus far.   I suspect we are safe in the future as well.

If you have some concrete proposal to make, I think it would be worth hearing it, but if you are just going to take pot shots, there's not much the rest of us can do except to try to continue getting work done while ducking your occasional volley.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email