IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 21 December 2016 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 4F335129617 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:13:11 -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 pCpZK7AScjsD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (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 80FCA129611 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 2C2E631D8D; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:13:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5BC26CB4BA; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:12:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 22:12:52 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20161221211252.GA29540@sources.org>
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"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <794D1A72-AC2A-4A47-869B-47BED9FA23A9@gmail.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 8.6
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/f6gt9jBe28XRKjVFR116C6zZgnk>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 21:13:11 -0000

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:04:38AM -0500,
 Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 54 lines which said:

> If the question is “Does the existence of an Informational RFC mean
> people will think the IETF is endorsing or promoting a technology or
> practice, and are they more likely to use it as a result?” the
> answer is pretty subjective and tends to be “It depends”— on the
> technology, on whether the document includes warnings about
> shortcomings and side effects, [...]

OK but, precisely, there is no such warning in the current draft.

Publishing a document without warnings and saying "we did not endorse
it, we just published a description" seems to me on the verge of
hypocrisy.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status