On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: >> Why shouldn't that work go on in the WGs that want the innovations in >> question? Why shouldn't people who know about the DNS involve >> themselves in the protocols that want to use these innovations so >> that, instead of being Defenders of the Protocol Faith, they are >> engineers trying to solve practical engineering problems that others >> have, but in a way consistent with the deployed architecture? > > Sure. If dnsop wants to do this work, that's fine. > > As for the dysfunction of the dnsext working group, I agreed to close it > because as an incoming AD I wasn't entirely clear on what to do when the > chairs requested that it be closed. If I had it to do over, I would > probably instead have solicited new chairs and tried to fix the dysfunction, > which I agree existed there. > > Unfortunately, the dysfunction will arise wherever DNS improvements are > suggested, so not trying to fix it is not an option. And of course I > realize that many good IETF contributors have been ground to a nubbin trying > to fix the aforementioned dysfunction, and have no particular reason to think > I would have been more able to fix it than my predecessors. Given your second paragraph, why create a new WG which will be an attractive nuisance? Andrew's proposal of letting WGs that want the innovations seems less likely to rekindle the dysfunction. (Disclaimer: I an co-chair of a non-DNS WG that is fully manifesting the "lack of interest to even review WG items that people said they wanted" dysfunction that we are speaking of. And I want to shut it down.) --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
