Re: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 9/30/15 4:08 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 15:32, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This is just a process discuss:
>>
>> The IPR disclosure at http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2539/ says that due
>> to the early state of the draft, license terms will be provided later.
>> Obviously the draft is beyond early stages now. Does it make sense to ask
>> for an update before progressing this draft?
> 
> That's a question for the IESG, not the DNSOP WG, correct?

The question for the  w.g. is are they aware of it?  the answer to that
is yes.

WRT to do they care care enough to withhold this document, I think we
have very little evidence for that.

> Having said that, it's not clear why the IESG would want to allow
> Verisign, or anyone else who says that they have a patent that they say
> they believe applies, to block progression of a document in the IETF.
> For an informational document such as this, maybe the damage of waiting
> months for a response is not a big deal, but doing so kinda sets a bad
> precedent for more timely standards track documents.
> 
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- section 1, paragraph 7: "Thus, recursive resolver software such as
>> BIND will not need to add
>>  much new functionality, but recursive resolver software such as
>>  Unbound will need to be able to talk to an authoritative server"
>>
>> It might be useful to mention the properties of BIND and Unbound that
>> make the difference.
> 
> We did that in the sentence preceding the one quoted. That is, the
> property is that BIND also contains an authoritative resolver, but
> Unbound does not.
> 
>>
>> -- 1, paragraph 8: "Because of the significant operational risks
>> described in this
>>  document, distributions of recursive DNS servers MUST NOT include
>>  configuration for the design described here."
>>
>> This made my day!
> 
> Glad to hear it! Others seemed to have chuckled over our disclaimer of
> originality in Section 7. If we can elicit as much laughter here as for
> an April 1 RFC, Warren and I have done our jobs.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman and Warren Kumari
>