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"
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00
Precedence: list

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3330323743_387809
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

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 =8Clying resolvers=B9 though, that seems a bit strong IMHO.  Bu=
t
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 Cu=
rrent
> 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 Informati=
onal
> RFC could indeed help the Internet.
>=20
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

--B_3330323743_387809
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt=
'>Good guidance on Informational vs. BCP. &nbsp;We may get there eventually,=
 but I thought that starting as a draft BCP might provoke more detailed and =
useful debate. &nbsp;;-)<BR>
<BR>
On the topic of &#8216;lying resolvers&#8217; though, that seems a bit stro=
ng IMHO. &nbsp;But perhaps I have missed a strong MUST statement (per RFC 21=
19) in a relevant RFC that you could refer me to? &nbsp;<BR>
<BR>
Jason<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 7/11/09 7:59 PM, &quot;Paul Hoffman&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"paul.hoffman@vpnc=
.org">paul.hoffman@vpnc.org</a>&gt; wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><=
SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>It seems inappropriate for the IETF to bless lyi=
ng resolvers as a Best Current Practice. I doubt we as a community could hav=
e consensus on when lying is good, when it is neutral, and when it is bad. W=
ithout such agreement, we can't agree on how to run such servers. Having sai=
d that, the publication of a document such as this (with more input from the=
 community) as a Informational RFC could indeed help the Internet.<BR>
<BR>
--Paul Hoffman, Director<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">=
<SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>--VPN Consortium</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3330323743_387809--