Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Wed, 16 November 2016 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D216E129596 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 1yU2en5sSJxf for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (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 98EF7129456 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id x23so80251500pgx.1 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:references:reply-to:to:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pvVdAXev6roXdEvrLMe7JJN6nGJxgeTlsZjWE6vD0qY=; b=cFCpcWlCmVgcFYDR69rBK6IWpFKTwwXB9/1sRKEZFEt9T+XD/BjhhAvA3qMHnQP+Ic RfGPp+KLKT94FYxI5qAb936+U/Slun1oj5C7JjHFYMK5Z1XpGlMyLTJ4bvt/zGzyPcIW 3NwYEDDivN+bUajhw+z7CMZPgsp5Dstu6KuwWw3VZHInt+xPT/HWi81YawkXCb3CLE9o VPFJjsrwM5CUATC5fKisqsjnnQucy+IyAfNkETfTEh87VjAbBT96Hk57tcp5sgMd0KW8 8TlpOgK5SzrKQ0jXxnANSMR8OMIlXuNSJ3xrAaw/G4h5vq7yJyo5PAO0TVBgFG+x79Pf Oinw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:references:reply-to:to:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pvVdAXev6roXdEvrLMe7JJN6nGJxgeTlsZjWE6vD0qY=; b=djo4J6X0UGIO2gx42PwnPiSfxsjdT2e+ADZAT/ILJDkObTijAti5EgnEiVmvRzSl+w QqLRTFwLNVDeb3u++fLUzUD5Ov5KlEFbYFtsT33hrC9W7Zdl2NjP3eiob+NKHQTsp6WP KOJM4/JxAwYmPJJnqqz1rT5emT6LB2urd6q5ro2Bvny7dUwYbPWg33YdUva6eace3Qe6 aVOjKmjsTx8hMRLdnmxJeY9gl/UI9Pv4SSjZt0gXcbDZf3qZ5jnZbspioIJSfV7AdPXv fFeL7JGQ2rP2Jpakn4xA7+qYrWCj5vZMCCa7gPEcb5//RLeIklLG1CnnllrnIpNgYzxA JCvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdRbTy1za3F5Og7qyHj8vHN/2TQyUxgjCOppBDWdgi2TMT3QbNsWJwdbL3zeMmYAQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.142.201 with SMTP id k192mr12468112pge.174.1479330617957; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.30.1.56] ([175.193.196.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm56811459pfj.26.2016.11.16.13.10.16 for <dbound@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAL0qLwb_JzkL9x=mikNrk8z943vHgJ2qrwew7Ucrd+PbL_wRqA@mail.gmail.com> <CB3C24CC-9FB8-4F41-BC36-4773968934B0@vpnc.org> <CAL0qLwaW2umAumVjGds8mYhSQfwtLf2+Fbgdo+zOqx_9QV3urw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dbound@ietf.org" <dbound@ietf.org>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <27410fdd-fb10-9d6c-6027-1ef7ce25826c@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:09:58 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaW2umAumVjGds8mYhSQfwtLf2+Fbgdo+zOqx_9QV3urw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/R9kOAj95cfmqwTYqfvQV8F-qBXk>
Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:10:20 -0000

On 11/16/2016 5:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft)
> some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build
> the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, who's
> going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the
> effectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the
> results and observations, to where will they be reported, etc.


Carrying this a bit further:

      Competing proposals get published when there is strong support for 
each and a failure to reconcile the support down to a single proposal.

      We have the latter condition, but I have missed the clear 
indication of the former.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net