Re: [dbound] The proposals before us

"Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Wed, 31 August 2016 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
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 A59C012D856 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Vilc0klHRNal for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4435912D861 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from healthyao-PC (unknown [218.241.103.65]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0BpcPxvL8ZXgvkNAA--.6765S2; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:14:23 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:14:18 +0800
From: "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, dbound <dbound@ietf.org>
References: <CAL0qLwYQcNLk7=4=W=vcVwLcMA8JSaKYAKoNGsKP6yQ13qD=Yg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2016083109135873899321@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart365127301465_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0BpcPxvL8ZXgvkNAA--.6765S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrKFyDGFW7Xr4kZr1fuF18AFb_yoWDCwb_ua ykWry5Xw1kurs7KFyrArZxta90grW2gFn7AryDXr1a934kA3Z7trZrtrZrXa43Jan3C3WD GFWSy345try3ujkaLaAFLSUrUUUUjb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUb38YjsxI4VWDJwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8CjxkF64kEwVA0rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVW8JVW5JwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0 cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26r4UJVWxJr1l84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4UJVWxJr1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG6xAI xVCFxsxG0wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6x CaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lc2xS Y4AK67AK6w4l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4 xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17 MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I 0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v2 6r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4xI67k04243AbIYCTnIWI evJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU22YLDUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/WrjIhT1zQI6BReqM2FW2UYw3khQ>
Subject: Re: [dbound] The proposals before us
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
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, 31 Aug 2016 01:14:31 -0000

Another proposal: 
  https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution-02.txt 




Jiankang Yao

From: Murray S. Kucherawy
Date: 2016-08-30 23:56
To: dbound@ietf.org
Subject: [dbound] The proposals before us
OK, let's get going.  It's time to make progress or die.


The proposals before us:


* ODUP (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deccio-dbound-organizational-domain-policy/)

* John Levine's proposal (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dbound-dns/)

* SOPA (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-domain-policy-authority/)


Given that we are now constraining ourselves to dealing with the email case only, do we have a clear preference for one of these to adopt and develop?  As I recall, we (especially the authors) all had homework to review these under this new scope constraint and provide critical feedback with a goal of making a selection of some kind for the working group to develop.  Does anyone have such comments to get us moving here?


-MSK