Tim Wicinski wrote: > ... > > On 6/24/14 3:57 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > >> My hope is that DNSOP doesn't become too DNSEXT-like where if the -00 >> for a proposal isn't universally loved, it is destroyed instead of >> worked on. > > We as chairs do not have that mind set. My personal feeling is to > figure out what parts do seem to be useful and have some interest, and > guide discussions along those lines. We may be also completely > delusional, but I'd like to keep believing otherwise for a little > while longer.
i don't think universal love should be the standard for surviving one's -00 or not -- so that would be a straw man argument if anyone is actually making it. however, the standard for consensus should remain good engineering in view of the overall system. i've authored any number of silly -00's over the years, which were killed before there could be a -01, because discussion in the forum pointed in that direction. e.g., dns-0x20 remains a bad idea, and will remain a bad idea, no matter how much work the group does on it. let's not learn the wrong lesson from dnsext's disgrace -- some -00 ideas do deserve to die. warren introduced dist-root to me in warsaw during dns-oarc as possibly one such stupid idea, and i agreed with him and told him why. per drc, i owe this forum a copy of those reasons. the chairs, and the co-authors, should be open to the possibility that no amount of work will yield consensus that the idea is sound and that the resulting overall system would be stronger than either the system we have now or other more easily reached alternatives. vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
