Re: [DNSOP] Role of informational RFCs Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 21 December 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 71011129704 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 iRbQ3i297s2F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3781296FC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.119] (50-1-51-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id uBLFguQr045344 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:42:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.163] claimed to be [10.32.60.119]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Suzanne Woolf" <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:43:32 -0800
Message-ID: <8162F940-3B00-441C-BEA6-7B35DD4ACFD6@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <794D1A72-AC2A-4A47-869B-47BED9FA23A9@gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <C18E2D4E-EE89-4AF6-B4A0-FAD1A7A01B5E@vpnc.org> <8f78a52b-01ae-f529-a1ec-d7eb90fe94be@bellis.me.uk> <6EBB4C5C-E2D9-40B9-86B8-03614804282D@vpnc.org> <20161220174650.GA884@server.ds9a.nl> <E6401D03-04D9-4884-ABC7-022C2E763B0C@vpnc.org> <20161221071436.GD884@server.ds9a.nl> <794D1A72-AC2A-4A47-869B-47BED9FA23A9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5310)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XU_vukkl_BeGE0okwxj3LDXdnBg>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Role of informational RFCs Re: 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: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:43:36 -0000

On 21 Dec 2016, at 7:04, Suzanne Woolf wrote:

> Just for clarity— no one is proposing standards track for this 
> document; the intended status has been consistently discussed as 
> “Informational”.

That "consistently" doesn't seem to apply to many people who have said 
+1 to the adoption of this document.

A different document, one that helps implementers who want to do the 
same thing as the others but that has no encouraging rationale and that 
acknowledges that there will likely be later work on the same topic, 
would be a much better starting place for this work. A document that has 
just sections 2 through 5 of this document with the barest of 
introductions, would be a much better starting point for this WG.

--Paul Hoffman