On 2014-02-16 16:52, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:15 PM, Patrik Fältström <p...@frobbit.se> wrote: > >> > On 2014-02-16 03:04, David Conrad wrote: >>> >> Perhaps DNSOP actually is the DNS innovation WG (if perhaps only as a >>> >> seeding ground)? >> > >> > The largest problem for IETF and DNS innovation is that the consensus in >> > IETF seems to be that innovation of DNS is not possible unless it >> > involves reuse of the TXT resource record. > > Sorry, friend, but this is trolling. Or do you believe that DANE is not an > innovation?
I think so, and I like DANE, I am all in favor of innovation, but I see strong forces against DANE, inside IETF. Yes, I am just starting to investigate and try to mitigate, but the forces against are the ones I see too often: - We can not use new RR Types, lets use A and TXT - DNSSEC will never take off - Lets just use HTTP for transport My point is that to get innovation, we have to over and over and over again address these issues. Ok, I take Daves point that there is no consensus from a process definition of consensus in the IETF, but the _feeling_ is that there is consensus as there is no consensus that we CAN add new RR-Types etc. Just look at the SPF discussion, or the cert-for-secure-xmpp which is what I refer to regarding "we can not use DANE as DNSSEC is not deployed". I see too many similarities between the two. And as I wrote, I claim those views block innovation more than anything else in IETF at the moment. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
