Mark, et al, > we looked at the process and removed most of the hurdles. > > * We cleaned up where compress domain names could be used. > * We formalised the handling of unknown types and classes. > * We gave IANA guidance on how to allocate new types and classes. > > People didn't take advantage of the changes we put in place. > They wouldn't listen to us when we said things had changed.
Why? In all other matters of adopting IETF work, the real choice of whether to use that work is a matter of decision by the market. If the "we" you refer to has not yet convinced the market of IETF developers who are designing new applications that use the DNS, then that "we" clearly has more work to do, beyond complaining or exercising a frustrating veto, > In reality it is easy to get a new type and deploy new RRs. > I've done it. I've watched others do it. The DNS core community seems to be missing the fact that DNS "application" groups keep considering the issue quite carefully -- since they are not unaware of the push-back from the DNS core community -- and keep coming to a different conclusion. The considerations include extensive discussion with the core community. No doubt your own assessment is right and the application groups are wrong, but have you considered wondering why repeated, diligent consideration by groups interested in timely deployment of their applications come to a different conclusion? At the least, the core community needs to create compelling documentation and convince the rest of the community. However there is a meta-issue here that seems to get lost: It is the difference between doing things in a way that is comfortable for the folks fielding the application, versus doing it in a way that that group has deemed more risky. If the former does not actually break the DNS, then what is the basis for blocking it? 4. On the matter of "it won't work" as applied to "breaking the DNS", we need to distinguish between doing something that degrades aggregate DNS usage, versus something that limits the DNS for a particular application. Surely the application-related group making the decisions should be afforded the right to decide to accept the limitations, as long as it is clear they understand the choice? In any event anyone complaining about their choice certainly has the obligation to provide detailed explanation of how it will not work or how it will degrade aggregate DNS operation. d/ ps. I changed the Subject because this sub-thread seems to be interesting, but unrelated to the matter of an underscore registry. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
