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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 31 August 2011 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAE821F8DC4 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vF400NZbmKPX for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C508C21F8DA3 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFF6F1ECB41C; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:30:41 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:30:43 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110831173043.GK99260@shinkuro.com>
References: <20110830162134.GB84494@shinkuro.com> <CA+9kkMCih-NWxaxBRD+9LphZEb2k+ce8NkNBm6HHubJ1kDO9TQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCih-NWxaxBRD+9LphZEb2k+ce8NkNBm6HHubJ1kDO9TQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org, draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] afasterinternet.com trial and draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-00
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:29:17 -0000

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:03:34AM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
> again, or is it your opinion that the code point allocation in an Experimental
> RFC does not need to address these issues?

Olafur and I consulted over this, and here is our opinion as chairs.
Note that we've been wrong before.

As a pure matter of the rules, it is our opinion that the code point
allocation does not need to address any objections to the idea.  The
rule is only "RFC Required".  An Experimental track RFC is an RFC, and
therefore it would qualify.  One might take issue with the experiment
itself, and one might take issue with what the experiment is
attempting to prove, but none of that would be reason to refuse to
publish the RFC nor to deny the allocation of a code point.

So, any RFC will do.  Even an RFC that simply says, "IANA
considerations: IANA allocate EDNS0 option NETMASK code TBD.  The
option is a text string of one of the following formats:
'IP4_addr/mask' or 'IPv6_addr/mask'", along with perhaps a section
that says by way of introduction, "This document specifies the NETMASK
EDNS0 option, but does not specify its use."

Taking my hat off, I note that, if this opinion is correct, RFC
Required appears to become a lower bar than Expert Review.  I am not
sure that the IESG would agree with our interpretation, therefore.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com