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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Fri, 17 March 2017 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 E57AB120727 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ZfZ4dZvxdKuW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 8C163124D68 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEA7134956A; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:18:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B22616004C; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:18:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C2E160069; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:18:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id JcClZuYiDUwl; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:18:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c27-253-115-14.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [27.253.115.14]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1BB916004C; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:18:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2D466FD831; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:28 +1100 (EST)
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
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> <20170313202811.GI4095@mournblade.imrryr.org> <68798e06-326b-4b6c-a916-9582cb72c6af@dcrocker.net> <78b1395e-32e3-5e63-00f1-251fa8eb70d0@dougbarton.us>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:48:05 -0700." <78b1395e-32e3-5e63-00f1-251fa8eb70d0@dougbarton.us>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:27 +1100
Message-Id: <20170317081828.0C2D466FD831@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/paifActGlmayNt4OkymGpRrsQFA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:18:37 -0000

In message <78b1395e-32e3-5e63-00f1-251fa8eb70d0@dougbarton.us>us>, Doug Barton wr
ites:
> On 03/13/2017 07:28 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > On 3/13/2017 1:28 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> >> Whether we like it or not,
> >> publication of said existing practice by the IETF will be seen as
> >> an endorsement of that practice.
> >
> >
> > This kind of assertion is frequently made, but never demonstrated with
> > anything other than theory or anecdotes, the latter usually second-hand.
> 
> I agree with Viktor. If the world doesn't take what the IETF says 
> seriously, why are we all wasting our time?
> 
> Doug

I've had people claim that the IETF endorses NAT for IPv6 because
we published RFC6296, even citing the RFC, despite the specific
disendorcment of NAT at the beginning.

   For reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not
   recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6.
   Where translation is implemented, however, this specification
   provides a mechanism that has fewer architectural problems than
   merely implementing a traditional stateful Network Address Translator
   in an IPv6 environment.  It also provides a useful alternative to the
   complexities and costs imposed by multihoming using provider-
   independent addressing and the routing and network management issues
   of overlaid ISP address space.  Some problems remain, however.  The
   reader should consider the alternatives suggested in [RFC4864] and
   the considerations of [RFC5902] for improved approaches.

Mark
 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org