Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 20 December 2016 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 0F564129BCF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:46:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 m8K9HDypYS_e for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A506129BEB for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=52312 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1cJOUs-0004LT-1n (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:46:42 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <C18E2D4E-EE89-4AF6-B4A0-FAD1A7A01B5E@vpnc.org> <8f78a52b-01ae-f529-a1ec-d7eb90fe94be@bellis.me.uk> <6EBB4C5C-E2D9-40B9-86B8-03614804282D@vpnc.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <5b809f32-8b41-b5d7-799e-14cf32648b2f@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:46:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6EBB4C5C-E2D9-40B9-86B8-03614804282D@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/HfGhrmd6jFKC2h6pC9vm8b0SnIg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:46:55 -0000


On 20/12/2016 17:43, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2016, at 8:35, Ray Bellis wrote:
> 
>> The document primarily covers BIND's behaviour.
> 
> Noted. That seems like a good reason for ISC to document it.

ISC isn't the current custodian of the specification.  Vixie and VJS are.

>> It would be good if other implementations were completely compatible
>> with that,
> 
> Is this so that different implementations use the same master file
> format, or something else?

Same zone structure (it's not the file format, but the contents thereof)
and same order-of-processing rules.

> It is completely unnecessary for the future enhancements to be based on
> an RFC. The IETF has experience where trying to change a vendor-specific
> informational RFC to something better was harder than starting from
> "here's a way to do it; Appendix A shows the differences in how This Big
> Vendor did it earlier".

Not my call - I'm relaying what was said in Seoul.

Ray