Re: [DNSOP] adoption mechanics and disclaimers wrt dns-rpz

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, March 20, 2017 4:00:23 PM GMT Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > Authors (and DNSOP),
> > 
> > It appears that this may have been a process violation here - RFC5378
> > Section 3.3. Right to Produce Derivative Works seems to say that the
> > IETF needs change control before a WG can formally adopt a document. I
> > believe that we missed the fact that this included "non-standard"
> > copyright boilerplate.
> > 
> > I / we are still investigating, and would appreciate it if the WG
> > gives us some time to figure this out.
> 
> I'm not a process expert, but I would think that this document is best
> resubmitted as individual RFC (with boilerplate updated to reflect this),
> and then immediately placed into a "Final Review" as specified in Section
> 4.7 of RFC 4846. The RFC-Editor should be informed that this document
> has passed the technical review already in dnsops and that dnsops is in
> favour of publication as individual rfc documenting as it describes a
> valuable current used practise, so the document should proceed without
> modifications to the specified protocol.
> 
> This also would address my issue of the WG adopting something it cannot
> really change that could be abused for nationstate-level censorship.

if that's what has to be done, the authors will do it.

> However, such a change of submission should not lead to any more
> substantive delays in publication. If this is not possible, then I will
> retract my objection to publishing this as a WG document, and would only
> request the authors update the initial sentence of the abstract to say:
> 
>  	This document describes an existing and widely deployed practise
>  	for expressing and distributing DNS reply filters. This is
>  	implemented using a DNS response policy inside a specially constructed
>  	DNS zone, and for processing the contents of such response policy
>  	zones (RPZ) inside recursive name servers.

well, so, it's not a reply filter, but your language as to "existing and 
widely deployed" can be added.

vixie