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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 16 April 2016 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A6E12E3CC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26BIxFDmoqGq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB04E12E3C7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id c4so178752832vkb.3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=9h3nbtqvNXZusM5xkq98UPM7+VWgoPfnHYZCO342RlI=; b=KBQA4EWvOVQa4M3q+Ji9w//kl93FeoEhPdI1x7m8HGV2ZXaOnnXGLsmIpN84mO9PEj rFoAn1SsCeRk9M/q4EPuz9XgIP0DY6amm7GAjLFDMDj6j13Ay8g11PLMZekFeYAqtO/I sZdawwCmqij1fsCvrRnnmlY4HrOXAVxel9AUNhtHYkvzhrvhC7JPI3jcN/1qbgdb8zC1 bsMg50NkOA3rJMdRW7PN20mjnGfQ6zEtKBhxLgzyu6Tju4AenKSeAFdZqKXtMddCfIU9 p782q15z/5riwzXCGmUnNDX6AXEThoF3iS5dqghyNquBFiMoX6NeX84juKWcJO5kJbfd HL/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=9h3nbtqvNXZusM5xkq98UPM7+VWgoPfnHYZCO342RlI=; b=OKkrvppc3dYMtAfIWrlKjvG77bm9vIxi0N+2jAZs6zqxVUm4jF/FWIFZ8djEfeoJck SRWTQvSv9QWotCqMfA+B+VAjAGEuWsYWMMpxUponTEM2SlG4ONZtyDsJeA8mXTSXFGgy cX7Y87D01NfuzuPULfxk73JvBgA5Xb+hita+XRJ7a29cvUFL+uuNHuRnw4BIq5tv46+V /XzyueC2yYrltHSDYPshGzsq9tR6Ws1I+w4RP0avCoGZ+ySMiOmdaMV83Jm/YNVaQSIB R/67CZSbunGpXmYyED0ZcsBDX5En9RmrUpYMLCaEacMk0SaJSxC2eLOr4rPoKeDM0GDN T2ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXsXJZrVZerNX8y+kUF8YQD8K91/hzxpz6Jgu4sAXDGN0mgB/bT7m0Ac0OzL6pW7jNW9p40bE/Y74TX0g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.159.54.239 with SMTP id p102mr1188483uap.99.1460821104810; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.103.43.5 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57125854.2030307@tana.it>
References: <CAL0qLwaGuz-CBMke3BhjfLwn7Bt213XobrOUe3_hAqxMZw+PKg@mail.gmail.com> <57025643.7040101@tana.it> <CAL0qLwb_8RN0w03N9P5xQsoC2aJppYTaBidmX_uuvioCJ6CaQg@mail.gmail.com> <5702946B.30307@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZAuVpWj-oDN6cyKiHmnJgpGdtyHKwMfz98v5odBOHTvw@mail.gmail.com> <570E8985.7080708@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa0FqQty+u3eDNQm7MJ_4KrveiyB80ukX3PZmpRARrnfg@mail.gmail.com> <57125854.2030307@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:38:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZ5HtDFgoB-BO00zigS4sZP5mOAB+cco1dEjWO-pvHCsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04cbba0865e105309beb04
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/BqeIR9q30rSl5IyQa-pxRW0_law>
Cc: Matthias Leisi <matthias@leisi.net>, AppsAWG <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 15:38:27 -0000

[dropping the IANA address because it keeps creating tickets in their
system]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Wed 13/Apr/2016 20:15:04 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
> 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.
>

It would if I had asserted that you have to publish an RFC, but that's not
what I said.  I was making a suggestion about one way to publish it, and
since you already have a draft, you're part way there.

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).
>

I've gone over the "why" with you at some length both at the Berlin meeting
and now on a thread subsequent to your request to IANA.

While I'm sympathetic to some degree with the "installed base" argument, I
don't think it's reasonable to accept a registration that doesn't fit
within the defining RFC merely because there's a single existing incorrect
implementation.

-MSK