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

Reply via email to