Re: [dnsop] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-03.txt

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Sun, 21 November 2004 21:17 UTC

Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (root@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24966 for <dnsop-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:17:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iALJlvl0016642; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iALJlvO8016641; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netcore.fi (netcore.fi [193.94.160.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iALJltF5016592 for <dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu>; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iALJlhh23819; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:47:45 +0200
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:47:43 +0200
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Suzanne Woolf <Suzanne_Woolf@isc.org>
cc: dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: [dnsop] WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-03.txt
In-Reply-To: <20041121165643.GA29786@farside.isc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411212145290.23597@netcore.fi>
References: <20041119215805.37460418A@thrintun.hactrn.net> <6.1.2.0.2.20041120155549.03b38d10@localhost> <20041121165643.GA29786@farside.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-dnsop@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 04:09:32PM -0500, ?lafur Gu?mundsson wrote:
>> At 16:58 19/11/2004, Rob Austein wrote:
>>> This is a working group last call on the "Observed DNS Resolution
>>> Misbehavior" draft, draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-03.txt, which we
>>> hope to submit to the IESG for consideration as a BCP document.
>
> I support publishing this draft as a BCP.
>
> My only reservation is with the use of standards-track language in a
> BCP. The recommendations are good and useful in substance, but I'm not
> entirely comfortable that we're doing as much as we reasonably could
> to discourage errant vendors in future.
>
> I don't want to see the draft held up on that account, though, so I'd
> publish as-is and also open some discussion of whether the included
> recommendations should be pursued as a separate standards-track
> document (presumably in DNSEXT).

I think I'll have to re-iterate my earlier point, from June 2004, now, 
because it was probably forgotten:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg02940.html

Have these changes been reviewed and/or adopted by DNSEXT WG?

We've produced a similar document like this one at v6ops, and the IESG 
stomped on it, because they wanted that the concerned WGs fix the 
problem, e.g., by new specifications, not that possible fixes are just 
described in an informational RFC -- check out 
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault in the I-D tracker if interested.

That is, if a dnsop document is proposing protocol fixes, those fixes 
must actually get in the dnsext pipeline, and we must actually wait 
for those fixes to be finalized before going forward. (Or, then we 
just remove the recommended protocol fixes.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html