On 05/06/2014 10:30 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 6 May 2014, at 13:27, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/06/2014 10:18 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
I think not picking up this work will result in implementation and operational
problems.
Those of us who still have the vomity taste would like the problems with
interop and implementation to continue.
Just because we _can_ make something work better doesn't mean we _should_.
As a matter of principle, I don't think people who never plan to use an
extension should stand in the way of those who do. The IETF doesn't exist to
stop people doing things.
Would you feel the same way about a protocol that made it easier for the
NSA to trace users? Or make it easier for China to firewall the West? Or
for some other theoretical government to hunt down and kill dissidents
that post criticisms of that government?
You could say that I'm arguing 'ad absurdum' here, but I'm not. There
really are such things as bad ideas, and it's perfectly reasonable for
the IETF to decide that something is a bad idea, and shouldn't be done.
Or at least, shouldn't be made easier to do.
(And again, see NAT.)
So NAT is an interesting case, since there's no doubt that the IETF
dropped the ball on that. But the problem there was not that the IETF
chose not to act in order to not support NAT, the problem there was that
the collective decision process failed by determining that NAT was a bad
idea.
The remedy to that error is not to swing the pendulum all the way in the
other direction, and support every idea no matter how bad. The answer is
to make better decisions.
Doug
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
