> I see two camps. Kids who want to clean up their room and kids who > dont want to clean up their room. We should side with the occupiers > of the rooms. > > In other words, this is not how WG consensus works.
What I see is that what is described in RFCs is only losely connected to operational reality. Most often this becomes clear when somebody from outside the DNS community starts implementing DNS. This often results in something that sort of looks like DNS, but is not DNS as we know it. It gets to the point where you cannot implement the complexer parts of DNS, such as resolvers or validators, without talking to experts in the field and trying to figure out all the stuff that is not in the RFCs. (That assumes that within the huge collection of DNS related RFCs you can find the relevant ones in the first place). The discussion in this thread is the first step in a pattern. Operational feedback comes in and is dismissed. Some people don't like it, so there is no consensus and nothing will change. The second step is that operational practice changes and that the RFCs are left behind. I'm not sure how this is a positive outcome for anyone. In the end, consensus among operators can be achieved within the IETF but just as well outside. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
