On 2014-02-16 17:39, Patrik Fältström wrote: > 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,
What I mean is that I *DO* think DANE is an innovation! > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
