Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 476F3129BFE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 1LTgAt3m-IeJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 19A2F1297C3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id b129so72258373pgc.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=IDAY/P4+eWrrDS89PG2I9vYo2UwyOl5oPz5H+lAwZdE=; b=tHdFcf/z1oaZOO2sy2gq80QByXsxNn3JCVxzMN6kptGdPsDqdiKe+1IibUh2m/lpJv znnztBAiG36RpAd0ZiwlTwNdafZ5KlYqauRfHFH40BuoIYqXZ3LRtxpeMERHgBwCo2Jt PKXFx3bsJhdckPE+7uVSRdP/vsZPzC/coFTgiZYWTsuxmyOQjpHDyLdw/RvNYn9waIKW n33OagUhsIPkvyVKdPYRCofcsKeamAj5Yo84JuuNKQ2BUWx1AjtUWRjAEKqudlo1I1oM DEfWvrGf4iChb49yunJJMTIOGsHqEMufkQyXcCM5Xz2I6y2azhjwpnzrO0d8nXvwHYUQ bMVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=IDAY/P4+eWrrDS89PG2I9vYo2UwyOl5oPz5H+lAwZdE=; b=WYsuiYg2eSYV3mgEKwZhTAfFqn2VmKjctYhlmX+rz8nNGkg/eJRbxqr7FV+azapiL/ nrffcm8ZYmTsYfUFl4xyV0FLIcPbN8YlCnfwHz6baOCb6dA4H3ihrn3V4ICL9wxFZxSi sXCYhGC1xpAyNtz4QqgFvpKAW3+o/7oEZnf5twNJp1gRo5GOlXs8lpL+FxGM7+W7zTiX 2b8hNpii54tbcCusfunTI1xNpm1yRNg43B48igQlcWVM+lYBsj3QpkL4qqjHqecpUkqy GZYT+FcEiMqLusAa9bLmzLbKw/2Sz29JjGF9XoukNfG9wUozGEY6/weEQhcM55PVnKsF 9tPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lbdSP2rn4q/wlnai7oyt/O1iEFcYnWCWbOzHmrlqT4rDfZqVNyZE/XGOCBSJjjcA==
X-Received: by 10.84.224.74 with SMTP id a10mr51861492plt.28.1489446436932; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (216-67-19-234-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.19.234]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e76sm34500246pfk.75.2017.03.13.16.07.15 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <CADyWQ+GUDg2iA+MQ9xjNLDVvRgnd9PD=pLBNNvp0xK3UZVSqTA@mail.gmail.com> <1AD82FB6-735A-4124-A0A3-2158EC567AD6@nohats.ca> <CAHw9_iK+SWiHZwGgHZRO2T1MLVQZS-2BaeZBzyUuZ0iWHX2ZjA@mail.gmail.com> <fa0b1bd1-f7b8-c3bc-58a3-397c1b118370@bogus.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703121922250.11053@bofh.nohats.ca> <19668099-d361-5bd5-7efb-2aab92c190e6@bbiw.net> <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703130533180.18195@bofh.nohats.ca> <677ed378-554b-5129-4f46-c2478696e483@dcrocker.net> <40D4F173-4ACB-4AF6-932C-85FC798240F5@vpnc.org>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2b6d551c-ba03-57da-aced-a6bd47a02680@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:07:13 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40D4F173-4ACB-4AF6-932C-85FC798240F5@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mnp0V2qQaqRTRvfLWT1OK5h6ov2EksPu9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/be-AESrbjQk4n0yDr_4rnSA0984>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] 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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:07:37 -0000

On 3/13/17 7:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Why "after" and not "during"? That is, if the WG document tells how this
> one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document
> other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That
> would certainly give the reader more context.

I have to say that I find it a little odd that a document
constrained to describing current practice or a currently deployed
protocol would be adopted by a working group - usually I'd
expect that to be an individual submission.  The benefits
brought by going through the working group process and developing
a working group consensus about the document seem pretty
limited in that context.

What were the authors hoping to get out of going through the
working group process?

Melinda