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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 12 March 2017 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 F2EFB12949F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 ooWSB0l5W6ZU for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 88720129435 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3vhHBH5jK7z3Tp; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:23:51 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1489361031; bh=+l1+m5p/9zJffbAf472h1M6Ez7TwbjYTXCmd5HIQ2KQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TF22b+WRlSBspmH5oraWUsnWYZTCaDBzn/ikCkDg46yW59IdY2jVFd1vPP5PU3rEL wLRiRiWCo+bPliv+As5kUC9HtuwpUr8efW9x/vVcYoLupLZLdaDuG/zLvS9Fn87tvr mY9FyYJSjddVJ0ZV32HhX0MJm+KDoufiRxlWWpo8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KyB4DWxmjKG9; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:23:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 00:23:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D55CD322DC1; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:23:49 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca D55CD322DC1
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2C1407E851; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:23:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:23:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <fa0b1bd1-f7b8-c3bc-58a3-397c1b118370@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.999.1703121922250.11053@bofh.nohats.ca>
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>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20.999 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/imadI4cW7IAWptOlRUkTJ08RQQg>
Cc: tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:23:58 -0000

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017, joel jaeggli wrote:

> On 3/10/17 5:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Once a document becomes a WG document the authors are required to
>> incorporate WG consensus.
>>
>> If this does not / is not happening, the chairs have the option /
>> responsibility to replace the authors with ones that do...
>
> If there's no consensus for advancing an altered or unaltered document
> then that's a problem; but not one that hasn't happened before. Consent
> is pert of concensus.

The problem is on how to answer the call for adoption.

I am in favour of adopting it if we can update it with some of the
changes I've suggested earlier on. I do not want to adopt it unmodified
as informational RFC for running existing code.

Paul