IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Fri, 06 April 2018 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBAA127867 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RESVLlAklftF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7B0D127863 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD79D3AB001; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:35:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id A34F6216C1C; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:35:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 04:35:44 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <20180406043544.GB53830@isc.org>
References: <20180324110756.GE69302@vurt.meerval.net> <9a03dbfb-a4c7-9ca2-22c4-d00a0d0d0223@nlnetlabs.nl> <CADyWQ+G7oR5M9pHgj5Ty+4yL1nsep2mpujLiE7nf__kVmN13fQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180328151939.GA19504@jurassic> <DA663930-380B-4A81-880E-4F8A3DB9FF25@gmail.com> <20180329200535.GA11358@jurassic> <84660e63-1952-08e6-da00-8842fae05899@nic.cz> <CAJE_bqeZu43a8jkJuucozYaASDWjHshdN1nV_4Vc2DHSy4rBng@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+FSp8TgHGvgAk+OqXMH5GDSRL78FMaRTjfZGBrw6U8b9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcxOCbUbSU9JPbovRv9KZ8Y4=00b4yw3v4=QOcBkxJ3Dw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcxOCbUbSU9JPbovRv9KZ8Y4=00b4yw3v4=QOcBkxJ3Dw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Ezm9XoC3D_HyvKwhHiNcxWITVFo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 04:35:49 -0000

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:31:37PM -0700, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:46:29 -0400,
> tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people
> > taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"?
> 
> I'm not sure how to interpret it (not even sure if it's a question to
> me)...

I suspect Tim meant to type "What is worse: An 'informational' document
being used as standard, or people taking a submitted (expired) draft as
'standard'?"

To answer, I think which of those is worse depends on the implementation
status. I don't have any problem with an informational document to explain
the details of something that's already widely deployed, but which for
whatever reason can't go through the standards process.

Consider RPZ, for example: it's been implemented several times, there's
lots and lots of real-world deployment experience. I'd be happy to see an
informational RFC describing it; I'd be confident in its stability.
Relying on old expired drafts would be disappointing.

ECS, though, was published before it was fully cooked, and continuing to
iterate and update the drafts would've been better.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email