Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl
From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Matthias Leisi <[email-masked]>, AppsAWG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:20:52 +0200
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>

On Wed 13/Apr/2016 20:15:04 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]> 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 ptype.property 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 policy.zone=lists.dnswl.example, because
it disagrees with the only existing implementation.  When that was discussed,
the syntax dns.zone=lists.dnswl.example 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.

Ale