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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 1E9AB129567 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=k8MhONQj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=bZWR3FLk
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 FcXJuMg5Wy8f for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C3912956B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FDCBEEDC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:37:28 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1489394248; bh=LFoQwbhf51oWjAtKVxtdDBsTfyicDFEIF0iVOjwd0fA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=k8MhONQjRbBJMj7rZzmWsX4dzd9OELD8y8HnRbnZKI9B08mPCek91UMvFb5YipzsC AMFtORthRaZ7ft6dAcnLZ3BKLFpvy9TY58WbfzeZ9pgzQ+Sjp6OfiHIzOn5K4ZlzIK 1MWsEjXZUNs4rDgijxhggLh0jC1Gse9fm4jaHbq8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5ee4-wCPi53 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:37:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:37:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1489394244; bh=LFoQwbhf51oWjAtKVxtdDBsTfyicDFEIF0iVOjwd0fA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bZWR3FLkzcdnbWK+6XnWiMm4WNqrb9X8ndNeMr+RMQJdCBawPhCp4v8NQrsj8uEKL p43DUS4SCGkFi0r3U6C6jFxOQP4TIgQiOhVdXFCd3EaZRRiyGtwJV7Zjyoy7kdEe9n MEjnnk0JqAvVekHeYfw21j9OQLlq0T0xypdwABcw=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170313083720.GC16732@mx4.yitter.info>
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> <CACfw2hht7SLQX=X85K=CbmxTkd5g9H5+DquQNcetr0Ahgnn+5A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACfw2hht7SLQX=X85K=CbmxTkd5g9H5+DquQNcetr0Ahgnn+5A@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/mvgnk13EoNC2zBSJ4AzMYkdSL9c>
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 08:38:07 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 10:35:19PM -0700, william manning wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> I'd be happy to see the document proceed under two conditions:  1) it
> becomes a WG document, subject to IETF change control

Without my IAB hat on, I should think that is self-evident.  If a WG
adopts a document, it's a WG product and the WG (and thereby IETF)
gets change control of the document.  This is why the WG editors
(called "authors") of the document can be replaced at the pleasure of
the WG chairs.

> enclave that is NOT part of the open Internet. Adoption and acceptance of
> this draft is an acknowledgement that the IETF, the IAB and ISOC reject the

With my IAB hat on, this WG is not in a position to make any claims
about what the IAB does or does not reject.  IAB positions are not
subject to IETF consensus; the IETF is able to remove IAB members if
it wishes using the recall procedures, but it cannot decide what the
IAB is or is not going to say.  (I suspect the IETF is not in a
position to make claims about ISOC's views, either, but I will allow
ISOC to speak for itself.)

Therefore, even if I supported the disclaimer, which I do not, the WG
could not add it to the document.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com