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

Petr Špaček <> Mon, 13 March 2017 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1C512962E for <>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YuW02EThH7HJ for <>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC66012941A for <>; 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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 587F660140 for <>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:45:00 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1489419900; bh=drIvlYd3z1JtdiCGJwTTJDDkJJ9M3dhFk9B/tQoN8aQ=; h=To:From:Date; b=Dw3SRDni1BfDVhZ+H9fdeN1rhGYLAWNNzc8SInp8sU2s5ZpHzw3zzCxXFczcbZlzj FIAHbaFbz7Kvv5IMKLwoebQwJeKpcsLjs6wvrOTxL1vOiWBcGWF76ac3+e1iIfprZ0 crBW+hmU4wmjA9dhRzYCYTOki3ZI6qkSJw5rHLM8=
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Petr Špaček <>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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