Subject: Re: Issue 1382 (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: New resource record type)

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:31:49 -0500

On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> I am very unhappy with the past behavior of the DNS directorate. In  
> particular they have in the past demonstrated a complete failure to  
> accept the fact that protocols have to be compatible with  
> deployment constraints.
>
> DNSSEC has been delayed at least five years due to arguments over  
> the importance of deployment constraints. This is not a community  
> that is sufficiently in touch with reality to be relied on.
>
> There is no point in accepting a boat anchor being added to the  
> protocol for the sake of getting through IESG review. At the end of  
> the day the IESG review has much less importance than the  
> deployability of the protocol.

I highly encourage you to go fix that - the IAB is working on a  
document on DNS. Get that document to be correct. (and I have no idea  
what is correct here) It is going to be hard for the IESG to approve  
a document that says A and the week after approve a document that  
says the opposite. I 100% agree that there is no point in the IETF  
wasting time developing protocols that can not be deployed and I'm  
willing to bet the IAB would agree with that too. There is nothing  
special or magical about the DNS directorate other than they  
represent some people that know and use DNS. Go drive some consensus  
on how people should use DNS in new applications.

Cullen

(And in fairness I think there are a lot more reasons that just the  
DNS Directorate that have caused DNSSEC not to deploy)

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html