Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl

Alessandro Vesely <> Sat, 16 April 2016 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA01912DA3D for <>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.298
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHkNxzL6ylKq for <>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F30312D9FC for <>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; t=1460820052; bh=kQQrA5Ott3LdFxpdPTu/VJi8YTa/GV20dUkPjpwxbAo=; l=1920; h=To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=sJdf//R/Gzh64QZNs6eO5VUpsoiUQ3FjBDZeiZunTB/cWSqcFNnxUhc/uOveOuFWn ldU8u6z+bNQJTpkkQRGvzMbYh7pRyfaguWoKer7/d4fUOUNePzoapkum7t8lW/hGfk bEbB0Y4KZGnVldrp1ildSEIkNMDEZ5/E56BSJzxE=
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by with ESMTPA; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:20:52 +0200 id 00000000005DC050.0000000057125854.0000099C
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:20:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Matthias Leisi <>, AppsAWG <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 15:20:58 -0000

On Wed 13/Apr/2016 20:15:04 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Alessandro Vesely <> wrote:
>> I still don't think it is worth publishing the I-D, but maybe IETF's list
>> archives can be considered permanent documents, which can be referenced by
>> items added after Expert Review, no?
> That seems... unconventional at least.  I would rather see something
> published.  Going via the ISE, if you're worried about the slog through the
> IETF Stream, seems like a perfectly viable option.

I think that is called RFC Required, not Expert Review.

>>> I had a look at your -04.  Thank you for addressing most of my comments 
>>> and suggestions; it's certainly better.  A few non-editorial issues
>>> remain:
>>> - The original list has not been updated as discussed,
>>> so the main problem remains.
>> The "dns" ptype has its own table there.  Added a more text.  I don't think
>> this is a useless ptype, since so much stuff is DNS-based...
> I explained in my previous replies why I don't think "dns" is a viable
> choice for a ptype.  I never said it was "useless", but it doesn't fit
> within the framework described by RFC7601 or its antecedents.  I proposed
> an alternative that I claim does fit.  Have you rejected it?

Yes, I rejected your proposal to use, because
it disagrees with the only existing implementation.  When that was discussed,
the syntax was chosen because a DNSxL is a zone in
the DNS, according to, say, RFC5782.  Nobody realized that "dns" is not a valid
RFC7601 ptype (and I still don't understand why).

Since I'm neither the maintainer of the existing implementation, nor the only
user of that feature, I cannot change the syntax arbitrarily.  Making a
registration that disagrees with the terrain seems pointless to me.