Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz

Petr Špaček <> Tue, 18 July 2017 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59308131DE3 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:32:40 -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 I9bk7GkmKnuU for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29E1D131748 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:b8dd:c7ff:fe99:40e5] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:b8dd:c7ff:fe99:40e5]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73C106226E for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:32:36 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1500381156; bh=ui+OD3uvk4wTpsCS/s9lc6EY34fOuHuGIXZecqu6uT4=; h=To:From:Date; b=bmU2Foisn9xlgsOj9V366M984BvIx76VR84Jau3wp3CXgoxutnPbzVC20vMhaTAE7 mXCNDxakZxRSr5JRYT6/UD4TnfC4IOxR0R81XloEF1ETdYyUovR2FUyO/lHg6lTKCL Xjha8wep+6K1IcW/wdvfsdzEQI+SUI49OBanPxlg=
References: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:32:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:32:40 -0000

On 18.7.2017 14:13, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> As you might recall, we had a call for adoption for draft-vixie-dns-rpz
> just before IETF 98 in March. We had a lively discussion and decided to
> adopt the document for further work in the WG as an Informational RFC.
> However, the chairs then discovered we’d made a mistake in adopting the
> draft with the copyright that reserved rights in derivative works to the
> original authors. This isn’t allowed for a Working Group document (see
> RFC5378, Section 3.3).
> We’ve talked since then with the authors about how we might move forward
> with the draft. They had concerns, which had already been discussed on
> the list, about some of the views of the WG on the applicability of RPZ.
> We believe we’ve found a way forward that meets their concerns and the
> needs of the WG. We propose that:
> 1. The draft adopts the following language in the Introduction:
>     This document describes an existing and widely deployed method by
>     which a security policy can be applied to DNS responses, possibly
>     causing an end system to receive responses that do not correspond to
>     actual DNS zone content. Such policy-based responses might prevent
>     access to selected HTTP servers, or redirect users to "walled
>     gardens", or block objectionable email, or otherwise defend against
>     DNS content deemed malicious by the RDNS operator and the end-user.
>     This method describes its policy using a specially formatted DNS
>     Zone called a Response Policy Zone (RPZ), and is an instance of a
>     more general mechanism called a "DNS Firewall." Like other
>     mechanisms called "firewalls," response policy zones (RPZ) can be
>     used to block both wanted as well as unwanted data.  RPZ ought not
>     be used to interfere with data desired by recipients. In other
>     words, RPZ should be deployed only with the permission of every
>     affected RDNS end-users.
>     This document does not recommend the use of RPZ in any particular
>     situation or instead of other mechanisms including those more
>     commonly called "firewalls."  This document lacks an applicability
>     statement for that reason, and because it merely describes a
>     currently common practice, without recommending or criticising that
>     practice. By design and expectation, response policy zones (RPZ)
>     must be seen as a defensive and virtuous tool, or it will either not
>     be used, or will be bypassed by end-users.
> 2. We had already limited the the scope of the document to describing
> the current protocol, with any discussion of proposed changes left to a
> later document if people want to do that work. That limitation stands.
> The intended document status is Informational.
> 3. The copyright is changed to the standard boilerplate required for a
> WG draft.
> If this is acceptable to the WG, we’ll keep the new draft with these
> changes as a WG draft. 
> If not, the draft will be dropped as a WG item. The authors can seek
> publication of the document as an independent submission or outside of
> the RFC series.
> If you have a comment on this, please make it succinctly and soon.

I'm fine with Informational document describing the existing version of
RPZ. My hope that working on that as WG item will help to improve the
text so it is unambiguous. Improvements to the protocol can be done
later on.

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC