Andrew Sullivan wrote: > ... > > For whatever it's worth, I think this outcome shows that the IETF is no > longer able to take uncontroversial descriptions of what people are doing > them and process them with anything like the dispatch they deserve. I think > that's unfortunate and is another symptom of the IETF losing its relevance to > the wider Internet, which is just going to go off without us if we cannot > handle what is happening there.
if i had sought IETF help with DLV, we might have a problem statement final draft by now, instead we're finally killing it having learned everything and done everything we needed to learn and do. when david ulevitch created the "afasterinternet.com" web site i thought he was just being cheeky. no longer. he needed client-subnet for his business, that year, not this year. i didn't and still don't like that protocol and i fear its long term implications, but i understand why he did it the way he did it. those of you who witnessed the failed DNS MODA effort, or the successful RRL or RPZ efforts, now know my thinking. when randy bush started referring to IETF as the IVTF (V = Vendor), i thought he was just being cranky. no longer. internet protocol development should look nothing like today's IETF or today's W3C, and instead become like the XMPP Standards Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP_Standards_Foundation). some soul-searching may be required. "stop helping me so hard, damn it." -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
