I don't think it is comparable. In my opinion it would be comparable to if e-mail required you to be on the same server as your friends or you couldn't e-mail them OR to have compatible servers that could communicate across different protocols, which is a run to the bottom just as in e-mail where adding new security and removing legacy is near impossible.
> to have compatible servers that could communicate across different protocols, which is a run to the bottom just as in e-mail where adding new security and removing legacy is near impossible.
TLS was not in the original email RFC. Such a high percentage of email servers use it now that some have started refusing to communicate with ones that don't. And long before 100.0% of email servers support TLS, you can still use it whenever it's supported by the servers of the sender and recipient.
The DNS RFCs contain a specification for zone transfers, i.e. requesting all the DNS records in the zone instead of any given one. Some people don't like the idea of anybody being able to download their entire zone, and it was always a silly way to sync zones between DNS servers as opposed to using e.g. rsync, so most DNS servers on the internet refuse to do it and a lot of DNS server software doesn't even implement it. But the people still using it internally for whatever silly reason can carry on doing so indefinitely without hurting anybody else.
Nobody cares about the legacy cruft that nobody they care about uses. What having central control gets you is the ability to decree from the tower that something some people are still using shall be removed for everyone everywhere. That can be more of a bug than a feature.
The biggest actual problem with protocol ossification is stupid network middleboxes that manipulate or drop traffic and then break on protocol changes they don't understand. The way to fix this is for future protocols to be encrypted so the middleboxes can't mess with it.
