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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 14 March 2017 02:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 9DE29129A1A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 4bdUD462G3Kk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 867D8129874 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2E2RGEY005303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:27:16 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1489458437; bh=ZtbQTlNS0FF35z+AZuuJxPDEox7ba7fmBUbuVcSzsqc=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=blsSjl4UmWqSHST9zliA1rMZ54dPqeUzIPvTScsp3CC5mOr5zdyXOjmZQeprsvIYC rGgzGsbOGQuxrwhRdW+Rgz1qE81Q5DUJYwGpT4tgtkdkiKIDoa+LjDysDeUvcuz/tr ng5H88sSY+TkW1vyDCscdkqaUfvp5Wr/vvzheVZs=
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
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> <2b6d551c-ba03-57da-aced-a6bd47a02680@gmail.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <4c10b125-36fb-e520-6154-ae3ac55cf830@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:25:14 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2b6d551c-ba03-57da-aced-a6bd47a02680@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mPT10B-tQIGoTT3NaMSdYpZcJtk>
Cc: 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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:25:22 -0000

On 3/13/2017 4:07 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 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.


13 Mar 2017 09:12:08 -0700
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg19545.html

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net