On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:57:40PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: > > Sure. If dnsop wants to do this work, that's fine.
No. This was precisely my point. For most of the stuff people want, the work should be in a WG that does not have "DNS" in its name. That's the _key_ point. We protocol weenies need to get out of our comfy chair and go learn why in the world people want to put _anything_ in the DNS. Our failure to do that is how we ended up with the situation we have: we keep stamping our feet and saying that the DNS works _just fine_ with new RRTYPEs, for instance, except that many who want to use them cannot. My view was that if there was something that was DNS-specific that needed attention, people should have a BoF. And look! We have 2 BoFs on specific DNS topics in London. The questions are narrow and focussed, not big floppy "gee, this looks like DNS, so it should be swatted over to the DNS weenies" ones. If the goal is a "Get off my lawn" working group, then big generic questions are in order. But I think we can do better. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
