Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND

"Paul Hoffman" <> Wed, 16 November 2016 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA6D12954A for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:16:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7k2JGfYBKbIr for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Opus1.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC281294D4 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id uAG7GW7B039227 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:16:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be []
From: "Paul Hoffman" <>
To: "" <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:16:43 +0900
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263)
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:16:47 -0000

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.)

On 15 Nov 2016, at 21:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 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
> make.

On this, I disagree with Andrew. The problem statement document hasn't 
been touched in over six months and I think has many use cases that 
probably do not have consensus. We would need to do a bunch more work 
(hopefully culling) that I don't think we have the energy to.

It is not the IETF way, but publishing a couple of related experimental 
protocols that have only their own internal problem statements seems 
better to me than hoping we have enough energy to agree on a single 

--Paul Hoffman