[cross-posting: dnsext readers please check the full thread on dnsop] On 1. 3. 2012, at 16:09, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > If dns-ng is a superset of useful dns functionality, but cleans up > certain issues with dns, then the intermediate resolvers in (2) can as > easily use a new port as they can use more complicated dns handling. > So I have to agree with Paul Vixie: if we're going to work on > replacing the protocol, let's replace it for real. (FWIW, I think > this is a noble goal doomed to failure. But I've been wrong before. > Probably three times just this morning.)
On the other hand, it might be just the right time to do this. With dnsext closure we can start with clean table and redesign the underlying mechanisms hopefully with lessons learned so far. I like the idea very much and I would like to initiate BoF in Vancouver if there is an interest to pursue this dns-ng thing. And no it is not meant as replacement for dnsext. The WG should do it's job, produce WG document(s) and close. I am not trying to get mad, y'know :-). O. P.S.: I know I am responding to a month-old email, but better now than never... -- Ondřej Surý vedoucí výzkumu/Head of R&D department ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:[email protected] http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 ------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
