On 06/20/2013 09:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:17:16AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
So some review of the DNSEXT-specified procedures and
expectations may be in order.
I encourage you, then, to organize the BOF session that will spin up
the WG to achieve this. DNSEXT is only still alive because our last
document hasn't been published.
But more generally, as a practical matter it is better that people
register their stuff with us than that they don't. We have, in the
wild, a used EDNS0 option code that is all over the Internet. It is
undocumented, and the code point isn't actually registered. That
state of affairs is surely worse than that the IETF didn't get to
provide good advice to authors. DNSEXT already tried to be the DNS
cops, and has failed miserably, partly because of the usual
get-off-my-lawn crowd and partly because people unfamiliar with the
IETF find its procedures a little arcane.
My view is that we need to be more pragmatic.
I agree with at least a little of what each of Olafur, John, and Andrew
have said; but I think there's a middle ground between "throw the doors
wide open" and "everything we have tried before didn't work." At least I
hope there is.
Perhaps we could have a non-WG mailing list so that people could submit
proposals for review prior to the expert review process. Even some of
the "get off my lawn" crowd offered good suggestions for this EUI case
(make 1 record with a size field rather than 2 records) that could have
made this whole process a lot smoother.
Doug