what the "scope" disagreement is about
Tony Hain
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Thu May 1 14:03:22 CEST 2003
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> My apologies to Tony for taking this couple-of-paragraphs
> from a very long thread on IETF-Discuss out of context, but I
> was curious about his choice of words:
I specifically chose those words, because the DNS community has
repeatedly decided not to deal with this in the IETF, even though many
of the members ship versions of a solution. We have a core
infrastructure service that is out of step with the architecture of the
network it is being used to describe. So this is a case where the IESG
needs to step up and task a group that has not decided to deal with it
on its own.
As far as I am concerned, the IESG regularly asserts this level of
control when it requires specific items to be in or out of a WG charter.
YMMV ...
Tony
>
> --- Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
> > Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >
> > > I struggled for a while to come up with ways of coming up
> > > with a "canonical DNS name" which could be passed around to
> > > multiple hosts many years ago when I was trying to come up
> > > with a convenient way to construct canonicalized, globally
> > > usable Kerberos principal names from host specifiers that
> > > were supplied by the user on the command line. We ran up
> > > against the same problem. Fundamentally, the DNS wasn't and
> > > isn't designed to do this.
> >
> > So the IESG needs to task the DNS community with fixing it.
>
> I'm wondering - how often does IESG think it "tasks a
> community" with taking on significant new work? I don't think
> I'm asking about taking on additions to existing work ("you
> need to include security considerations"), I'm thinking about
> something bigger...
>
> I'd like to think the answer is "yes, at least from time to
> time", but don't have the experience needed to know for sure.
>
> Spencer
>
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list