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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 09 March 2017 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 6672512947A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:27:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 yx2BpeVxf6HG for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:27:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 26C841293EE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:27:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vfMQW6fn2z1cL; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:27:47 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1489091267; bh=LAFbtRv0o0kqEr/XcqqvQKM34BsYK94YbY7QdGmOYQE=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=QfvWtavzNg8y8MNOlcEO+1pY47fTUKWYifRm8UPxYU1NGFBEesY10oiKWUJ0Q74sL 1zwg7aE8pgGhKcsgD41iPnffOzlzLe8yemokqadwhh5lrAi34OfOZbamObpLBndr7k gMl7EwE6jjaikgIB9iACk3Qdjg2tj1MleFEAF28I=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b_73fv5Qtbfw; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:27:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:27:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.2.130] (4daf9e5c.ftth.telfortglasvezel.nl [77.175.158.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AB213943A1; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:27:44 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 8AB213943A1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14D27)
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+GUDg2iA+MQ9xjNLDVvRgnd9PD=pLBNNvp0xK3UZVSqTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:27:42 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1AD82FB6-735A-4124-A0A3-2158EC567AD6@nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+GUDg2iA+MQ9xjNLDVvRgnd9PD=pLBNNvp0xK3UZVSqTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LV0UF3DyBUWal6ka5ot0DiZigvY>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:27:55 -0000


> On Mar 9, 2017, at 18:54, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> We’re going to go ahead and adopt it for DNSOP, with the intention of
> resolving the concerns people expressed by keeping the status as
> informational (not standards track) and making sure the cautions and
> limitations the WG discussed on the use of RPZ are clear in the document.

I don't understand how this works. 

The authors clearly stated the document will describe only what is currently implemented and they were
not willing to make changes. How can this ever turn into a real WG document?

Paul