[dbound] On a path to closing

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5867129583 for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:59:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h-wlRIJRbDdx for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:59:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87ABF129536 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:59:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA33109F7 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7RyY04BUR28H for <dbound@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx2.yitter.info (dhcp-91c9.meeting.ietf.org []) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1517910616 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:59:15 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dbound@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20161115125915.GB51667@mx2.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/Z-nEVmkWQQBiEtt3XQJmGY_KZIo>
Subject: [dbound] On a path to closing
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:23 -0000

Dear colleagues,

I spoke with Jeff tonight, and we would like to make a modest proposal
as a way of closing the WG: that we polish off and publish the problem
statement, in an effort at least to get something written down about
what issues there are and what distinctions someone might want to

At the same time, we discussed addressing outstanding comments about
SOPA and publishing it as an experimental RFC somehow (i.e. either ISE
or AD sponsored).  This ought to be possible: an RRTYPE allocation is
expert review and I think we have something sufficiently clear as to
meet the requirements.

It strikes me that I probably just should have followed that path ages
agoin order to test whether any of this was viable.  I guess I know
better for the future.  In the meantime, though, does anyone object to
pursuing experimental status (assuming we can specify what would
provide evidence that the experiment worked)?

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan