Subject: Re: [dnsext] WG Review: Recharter of DNS Extensions (dnsext)

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:31:35 -0500

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:07:04PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The point is in any case moot since WGs do not get a pocket veto on work
> proposals.

I don't think anyone was proposing that: the WG clearly doesn't have
some sort of monopoly on what happens using the DNS, because we have
fairly relaxed rules for RRTYPE assignment.

But the WG is chartered to deal with extensions to the DNS protocol.
If, in the face of proposals to extend the protocol, one cannot find
five people to develop that extension and work within the WG to achieve
it, then I think it is fair to ask whether such an extension is such a
hot idea.  

If the complaint is that DNSEXT is dysfunctional, then that is perhaps
a reason that the ADs should replace the chairs, or that the WG needs
to be shut down, or something.  But note that there's no membership
requirement, so if the WG is just dysfunctional because of
indifference on the part of participants, the problem can be solved:
find interested participants.

There are, I imagine, protocols that are appropriate for
standardization even if five people aren't interested, because the
likely user community is tiny.  That's not the case with the DNS:
changes to it affect everyone.  If we really can't find five people to
say an extension is a good idea, then that's likely an indication that
the protocol ought to be left alone.  It's old and creaky enough as it
is.  That's all the five-reviewer convention is intended to illustrate.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.