Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:08, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On 30 Sep 2015, at 15:32, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This is just a process discuss:
>>
>> The IPR disclosure at http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2539/ says that 
>> due
>> to the early state of the draft, license terms will be provided 
>> later.
>> Obviously the draft is beyond early stages now. Does it make sense to 
>> ask
>> for an update before progressing this draft?
>
> That's a question for the IESG, not the DNSOP WG, correct?

Yes, for the IESG to discuss.

>
> Having said that, it's not clear why the IESG would want to allow 
> Verisign, or anyone else who says that they have a patent that they 
> say they believe applies, to block progression of a document in the 
> IETF. For an informational document such as this, maybe the damage of 
> waiting months for a response is not a big deal, but doing so kinda 
> sets a bad precedent for more timely standards track documents.

I agree we should not hold this up for months. It's a trade off between 
that and letting an IPR holder wait for an RFC number before they 
disclose terms. I don't know where that tradeoff should land--that's why 
I brought it up for discussion.

I do note that the shepherd write up mentioned that the work group 
anticipated license-free or royalty-free terms. The disclosure allows 
for the possibility of royalty-bearing terms.

Ben.

>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- section 1, paragraph 7: "Thus, recursive resolver software such as
>> BIND will not need to add
>> much new functionality, but recursive resolver software such as
>> Unbound will need to be able to talk to an authoritative server"
>>
>> It might be useful to mention the properties of BIND and Unbound that
>> make the difference.
>
> We did that in the sentence preceding the one quoted. That is, the 
> property is that BIND also contains an authoritative resolver, but 
> Unbound does not.

It was not clear to me if it was a question about whether BIND included 
one, or somehow Unbound prevented the use of one. It's not a big deal 
either way, though.

>
>>
>> -- 1, paragraph 8: "Because of the significant operational risks
>> described in this
>> document, distributions of recursive DNS servers MUST NOT include
>> configuration for the design described here."
>>
>> This made my day!
>
> Glad to hear it! Others seemed to have chuckled over our disclaimer of 
> originality in Section 7. If we can elicit as much laughter here as 
> for an April 1 RFC, Warren and I have done our jobs.
>
> --Paul Hoffman and Warren Kumari