Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05

Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com> Tue, 18 October 2016 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <matt@conundrum.com>
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 6BD00129972 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 ZoYcVc8sweIU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597D51298CC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id o68so3966192qkf.3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=conundrum-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iCoWV/GI7ps3E9CJkHHC6s+zmr7Qc8aGsA872MfhZ+0=; b=VoW0SB2S0769WaoTpTGEaFQMN50urlYaXnlUNtBx1akK/qhxbjMoNdWNO0DnM6WceJ fyv2oCHG7y8NVCtkmXL2EKaa7a3a5snVJt2i6wRhJduTTALBC4eIN0AAeO3nrLT6I2gV bLTPTghbWN02jCy8T5f21HognUl6+VgOeFhfbdJeecwKVglpfqzy5J5HcAgmDdB4AX3K WhU9PZH096KbVzgNX/XLllVMiFoNMWofs23dDNCcP/AlCPUxpPu5rFK09Xg0QBd0W6XM 0WWJd/NcJhmnMgoPxEeBDZ3n0/cFrTxvmI9eyA1ov2Mgt9lyca/5uHseEmmZdKv6irbi LhTA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iCoWV/GI7ps3E9CJkHHC6s+zmr7Qc8aGsA872MfhZ+0=; b=a0xa6QRjqVEuki12vb2FAQE7W7iyPuBbRBrLslp4LSSrvch9cCQ7T5Srs5u85OeXcN oIeGwyiADBJHIXNXpbbx98WTu7yyCyO3hUazx/KGfP95TrQXZ0KqANkp7jL84H9DBrSA 58+w42r1rCS/FCFa/l90Eply4WuIo6M9pNdRFGLIKzFxfKtNhEMNluk96E90jaJqELT6 ckgi8qdWtGthcaSIeO/P0WB3vgQx2s2epZVjUCDKyXFj2rTiWAjdUo4/LbPi14W52Wga njEgLzU4H2YGUjU/oODUGbWF0RrfJo3T64HV1/evS7mZ3epCm4bEAF7UHM5mxoaddcjZ j/6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkgLeONKzWtuDuOXT76qlJDYAwKwNpGboG8iHyjV7r0aI1JQyTcw5sK++4AEjoFgWT/qYkpqorqMApPFw==
X-Received: by 10.55.152.4 with SMTP id a4mr2360908qke.205.1476817220754; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.35.249 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:ce0:101:19c7:f3cd:167:f98c]
In-Reply-To: <20161017021526.7AB1656D0F46@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <CAAiTEH9Rbw4u3gV9GULQ-8WdoPHf3SXQMTRY+CtfUGrNQSGAWw@mail.gmail.com> <20161010023251.241F1560C844@rock.dv.isc.org> <CAAiTEH_Tn8YXXe9wYMgobeg0Fd3OdY9M4Rey6QQxh0Yg=G0UWw@mail.gmail.com> <20161017021526.7AB1656D0F46@rock.dv.isc.org>
From: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:00:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAiTEH_D_OPAc9KV8d7z3spaQrt2V2V6pZB3s+mcDvvpNqLDTw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07ecfad77eba053f284d20
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/VNo3X0N9CDQgyDMZd2eD0c4WUo8>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] review of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-05
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:00:38 -0000

On 16 October 2016 at 21:15, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

>
> In message <CAAiTEH_Tn8YXXe9wYMgobeg0Fd3OdY9M4Rey6QQxh0Yg=
> G0UWw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Matthew Pounsett writes:
> > >
> > > But not all registries as so constrained.  This is BEST current
> > > practice not LOWEST COMMON DEMONINATOR practice.
> > >
> > > GTLD are required to remove records for abuse so removal of record
> > > is expected for some conditions so it is not beyond belief that
> > > they can change to include these reasons.  ICANN still has a committee
> > > to maintain the stability of the DNS.  Nameserver behavior very
> > > much affects that stability.
> > >
> >
> > The draft can say it would be helpful to take action.  The draft can't
> > require action.  Requiring action isn't describing a best current
> > practice.  That just won't fly on today's Internet.
>
> I've had TLD's saying they want the hard line to be there as it
> backs up their stance.
>
> > If you want to lobby ICANN to modify the gTLD agreements, then we can
> > revisit this discussion.  But until those are changed the IETF has no
> > business insisting on contractually prohibited actions.
>
> The IETF can say what is BEST practice.  If gTLD's feel they cannot
> meet BEST practice they will not do that.  No one can make someone
> follow BEST practice.
>
> Every time I hear "But the gTLD's can't do" I see a conflict of
> interest showing.
>
> The IETF can recommend things that gTLD's can't do today.  There
> is nothing wrong with doing that.  It puts the IETF's position not
> gTLD operator position.
>

The problem with the draft is that it doesn't recommend -- it requires.
1) It incorrectly references a non-normative RFC as if it were normative.
2)  It includes imperative statements while claiming to be a description of
best practice.

Neither of these things are supported by your argument.