Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND

Kurt Andersen <> Thu, 17 November 2016 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71EA51293E9 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pVzPo63d2zV5 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFBF7126579 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j191so6452477ita.1 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FH0i2OX3d/PhIyVjPCHFiAOPZbzjFEpyN4Q8wYspeBA=; b=e24nEOuaDN1Y8ThQoK95fLHjBOAABt/3/3vZ3odsOyYkb6HiYKA+uIs1hUCrKbvU7H GlPd9iVWcir4lOyrev1TgtavTgylqbZBG7CvidRjKhYL/wYC5iSm3/NeXJUKIwWrkC6q 9L+gIgsOxqDJf37crDf5XKQv30NE6AUY5RXVs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FH0i2OX3d/PhIyVjPCHFiAOPZbzjFEpyN4Q8wYspeBA=; b=cVXrf+Zm8VePLUJPqstzrMlLi2as7NhrvxsGz3iue3ZGpt8SiGlIVh0kHmwylrRorE iUZwRdqI5YPFkDij22ZI09/lTtsIGltKCs4uoW1V68E8j03kWRKlemRpeID11t7L9HDF WGm4ex83iCLGNKp768YT26qK/UQak3b07bFTZe79jZu1ZPkfwMFeCVTvTilxURj5LDBf pM831bMusfOg3CLNtktafUlvBrSxCy0LChkgBGBEeAO79bxt8vhzL/bsoJdOc76fbNaA p8BOqPDEvhENuM2TNmHpwBHrYqtNIaJAr7hqIoQrt8vQ7xarn/NBe5zkNMh+6sH6stJE M0mA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC022GXyDf7RZnx4sILw439VbvO4yYqiyiUp3+WLfahg8SdP8ARBbb6207zvZwY2/9CU+t0BgRT0eYCoIng==
X-Received: by with SMTP id t137mr156325oih.78.1479343017273; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Kurt Andersen <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:55 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113deec20bbe1f0541746354
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:36:59 -0000

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <>

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Paul Hoffman <>
> wrote:
>> Andrew has suggested that SOPA be published as an experimental RFC, and
>> Casey asked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would be a vast
>> disservice if they were progressed differently, and if
>> draft-levine-dbound-dns wasn't treated the same way.
>> Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on
>> all three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial
>> and technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey
>> for AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and
>> IESG review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is
>> willing to do this.)
> 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.  I don't
> want Experimental to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize.
> (See also RFC2026 and
> informational-vs-experimental.html.)

What about publishing an experimental design spec along with the four
drafts? That could put a framework around the entire process and perhaps
avoid some of the challenges that SPFbis had when trying to move from
experimental to standards track. The WG could become the manager of the
experiment for a designated duration and responsible for collecting and
publishing the results.