Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00

"Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> Mon, 13 July 2009 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83FB28C126 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.582
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.419, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u05lKLViHZtq for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.59]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F5628C2E5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([10.52.116.30]) by paoakoavas10.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.65140412; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:55:35 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:55:36 -0400
Received: from 198.137.252.126 ([198.137.252.126]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server webmail.comcast.com ([198.137.252.76]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:55:34 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.19.0.090515
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:55:42 -0400
From: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C680B51E.EB21%Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00
Thread-Index: AcoCg8EFpe0+cg9sRROXjQqBj7pXcwBPdtQy
In-Reply-To: <p062408b6c67ed70acc85@[10.20.30.158]>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3330323743_387809"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2009 13:55:36.0210 (UTC) FILETIME=[98E38720:01CA03C1]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:55:28 -0000

Good guidance on Informational vs. BCP.  We may get there eventually, but I
thought that starting as a draft BCP might provoke more detailed and useful
debate.  ;-)

On the topic of Œlying resolvers¹ though, that seems a bit strong IMHO.  But
perhaps I have missed a strong MUST statement (per RFC 2119) in a relevant
RFC that you could refer me to?

Jason


On 7/11/09 7:59 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> It seems inappropriate for the IETF to bless lying resolvers as a Best Current
> Practice. I doubt we as a community could have consensus on when lying is
> good, when it is neutral, and when it is bad. Without such agreement, we can't
> agree on how to run such servers. Having said that, the publication of a
> document such as this (with more input from the community) as a Informational
> RFC could indeed help the Internet.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium