Re: [dnsext] trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00

Andrew Sullivan <> Wed, 31 August 2011 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0366821F8E7B for <>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.564
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uvlwVe+RlUcT for <>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FAF21F8E6C for <>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 840C41ECB41C; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:51:06 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:51:07 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:49:42 -0000

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:23:17AM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Traditionally expert review has been a lower bar than RFC required
> because you have to convince someone that it's a good idea to publish
> the RFC (The independent stream editor, some working group, some AD).
> That's not been trivial, and it usual comes with questions about the
> track.  An experimental RFC, for example, might be tasked with
> describing the experiment and what results would constitute success.


> You and Olafur previously said (as individuals)  "We stand ready and
> willing to help
> you pursue that publication, particularly since you intend your
> protocol to be experimental.".
> Since this was evidently not through the working group, did you intend
> AD sponsorship or an
> independent stream submission?

I can't speak for Olafur, but I am prepared to do whatever the authors
want.  To my mind, it is considerably more valuable that we have
stable documentation of the use of this option code than it is that we
do things in this or that way.  To me, if the experiment goes ahead as
is currently planned, we have to mark the option code as used anyway.


Andrew Sullivan