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

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Mon, 13 March 2017 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 1A1C512962E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 YuW02EThH7HJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC66012941A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:9c05:f5ff:fe33:6a97] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:9c05:f5ff:fe33:6a97]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 587F660140 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:45:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1489419900; bh=drIvlYd3z1JtdiCGJwTTJDDkJJ9M3dhFk9B/tQoN8aQ=; h=To:From:Date; b=Dw3SRDni1BfDVhZ+H9fdeN1rhGYLAWNNzc8SInp8sU2s5ZpHzw3zzCxXFczcbZlzj FIAHbaFbz7Kvv5IMKLwoebQwJeKpcsLjs6wvrOTxL1vOiWBcGWF76ac3+e1iIfprZ0 crBW+hmU4wmjA9dhRzYCYTOki3ZI6qkSJw5rHLM8=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+GUDg2iA+MQ9xjNLDVvRgnd9PD=pLBNNvp0xK3UZVSqTA@mail.gmail.com> <1AD82FB6-735A-4124-A0A3-2158EC567AD6@nohats.ca> <CAHw9_iK+SWiHZwGgHZRO2T1MLVQZS-2BaeZBzyUuZ0iWHX2ZjA@mail.gmail.com> <fa0b1bd1-f7b8-c3bc-58a3-397c1b118370@bogus.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703121922250.11053@bofh.nohats.ca> <19668099-d361-5bd5-7efb-2aab92c190e6@bbiw.net> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703130533180.18195@bofh.nohats.ca> <677ed378-554b-5129-4f46-c2478696e483@dcrocker.net> <40D4F173-4ACB-4AF6-932C-85FC798240F5@vpnc.org> <551a350e-8bfa-996d-38a5-183a416c2cb1@dcrocker.net>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <7e5b3f7d-34c1-96b6-9bbb-5f54829bde85@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:45:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <551a350e-8bfa-996d-38a5-183a416c2cb1@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/NPUUee3D3onJqcxN-r7fq-aN9D0>
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:45:03 -0000


On 13.3.2017 16:12, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/13/2017 8:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2017, at 7:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2017 4:11 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>>> The draft breaks DNSSEC.
>>> ...
>>>> I have proposed a method that would not change the RPZ response for a
>>>> non-DNSSEC client, but would add data for DNSSEC capable clients to be
>>>
>>> That sounds like an excellent bit of technical enhancement to
>>> consider... /after/ documenting /existing/ practice.
>>
>> Why "after" and not "during"?That is, if the WG document tells how this
>> one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document
>> other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That
>> would certainly give the reader more context.
> 
> 
> They are fundamentally different exercises.
> 
> A baseline document for /existing/ practice is extremely common for the
> IETF to start with.  It provides clarity to the community and a stable
> platform for enhancement work.
> 
> Groups that try to simultaneously document existing practice /and/
> define modifications tend to produce a confused specification.

I agree. Knot resolver team has some very limited implementation of RPZ
and it would be very beneficial to have a document describing current
status so we could be interoperable.

What is missing in the current draft is a versioning scheme. There
should be something which can be used to distinguish current version
from any future versions.

For this reason I propose to document current practice with exception of
adding *a minimal versioning scheme* to the draft.

When version 0 is published we can certainly work on improvements but
anything else is IMHO putting the cart before the horse.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC