On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 1:50 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

hi warren,

i understand, support, and admire your intent and your persistent effort. i wish i had your stamina.

but the ietf has spent years telling operators how important the ietf is while treating ops as second class citizens inside the ietf[0]. i sympathise that the latter is much harder to address than the former; welcome to late stage capitalism. and i confess to having given up.

but i can not resist two comments on the former, dns tech content

o the ietf is not an unknown. the nerdy ripe dns wg members already follow the ietf dns documents; though some at a safe distance :). the issue may be more how to make it efficient and productive to engage. when being a standards professional is not one's dayjob, efficiency is key.

o your message focuses on the deleg effort to boil the ocean yet omits the only (to me) deeply interesting work



My message was not intended to cover or rate what DNSOP (and ADD and DPRIVE and…) are working on - it was just a list of the adopted documents and published RFCs from those groups (and it seems that only DNSOP has adopted or published since Jan 1st).

A better example is probably https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/thread/TCK24JJ2XT7NPCEN27NF33A37WSWCSI2/ , which is the same thing but for the routing area.  


, that of johan stenstam et alia on multi-provider dns[1]. this is something dns operators actually need!



Yup, fully agree.
W