Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Wed, 16 November 2016 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DFB12957A for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, 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 (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2e9U_ebI3_61 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D320129465 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i145so124699364ywg.2 for <>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HXEs078+2qP0RYVe7UM+/BC+fIIP0hxjvK2s4elF7O4=; b=Ub94wF50RrstKNSFsniVJ2p//d1yv4pp6nuyrw4TLkFQhsdJfaxrSJce919zA4ULmB EwZpvvem53HjdCf6wtxominFEja6UjYNum02DKJSfyxBtqJDSA3GtCZTFsHbVSNnMS+H cVjNHI2mJyAM/aXfaiWG/UvZD6Rfn4Wrpbm9FR3JTGYf87uzjtZtjtmJmFG0fWp79K57 DdkNxfqGaf3/9k5zQoq2L6uib/LttS3N5pGTA3LGunpQ6Hvuhw98BNVQNJyD5ZjNIklG mmm/C8Gj8TCuTZ01zJgKtTwPL4iPB08eiyK2xYyULxPmdK3/jW28vxb9E8BgU0od/l9a YMWg==
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=HXEs078+2qP0RYVe7UM+/BC+fIIP0hxjvK2s4elF7O4=; b=BpsSQyfZkLm8HCGZ1y7fXnxkRqwRk8kDUvhhH/3HT+hK6CsjaLEHp9Eo7fgnTBq4+T 1fd1tFiB927RMVz0PXnFipHV0/f17HEc61cA+maIWJEFp7Wws2HHJI8D7R4/2KjWbM62 afftQ+U/osLYWb+0WYRrlpvw/N0hVaab43lJxfug7t7W/SaSmSQUJ66FrlRXCiWystOg LZIEDUQ2+sxHbw5UpTNyhuzl1cMnv6K7dCnkn9wbA2bHFZYg3k6SNMJi2Y+OAqasAioR Ryfjsi6p3dCSLDYYQ7LcevSpE04OjyYp4fRlIsCu2hCy6NTWhoRP3lallYFSdcVVQbgo 1KGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcykktO9GCnT5QQUIFEq/F4FYhI3E9pGhKQ7Ai3zIHrHqmvlcHnl3rt+xT3QyWWCXh0uzJ6113bQkp+9w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a65mr2906651ywb.287.1479304243168; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:50:42 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140b770ede86105416b5b34
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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 13:50:46 -0000

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 just had dinner and a beer with Pete so I sure wish I'd seen this first
so we could've discussed it.  Therefore, speaking only for myself at the

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

Absent that, we could consider Informational, or people can feel free to
avail themselves of the Independent stream or the DISPATCH path, or
whatever publication route they wish.  In the alternative, if somewhere
down the line it's clear critical mass has finally appeared, the group
could be rechartered and reactivated.