IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 05 April 2018 21:16 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 E674312D7EC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:16:39 -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=VC/R6Y1g; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=b1rEMC7d
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 KQMhSjSoWwVe for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:16:37 -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 DB37912D7F6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5EFBECAC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1522962993; bh=kvZc66aZiOAHO+7JXydQJARTs8ddROWZSYEBiDptNHo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VC/R6Y1gkPXXDq9wBBi/P+XkfEcdIduJVYQLScxawDivXWbeu50DfDC2Sw3juLjOr bA0cps87L1NktEW4cqAp7It6VyRPD9rISjh/14uMOC63QqogqnQrEPY/fclQp5wsdn thY2Kq72IAXn7MM1LPMwGF8vuKuHje+lh7PYZf8Y=
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 1B4BLc9aWVkv for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2018 21:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:16:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1522962992; bh=kvZc66aZiOAHO+7JXydQJARTs8ddROWZSYEBiDptNHo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=b1rEMC7d3//0qJSDlM+GGkcpsRssXlj7l0t+Ozc+oDTip93W7O6KAuDpdz+pPp1hB sKHIufJvFPUytTG5ZOCDDKjL81J+skJ11rTH6t2cFiJZlAjvBkg7fkKjwxS4g6Rp9m qPi5H/mEbMbD/OGNx2hIDwENTxV//MNJ9mYEbCKU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180405211630.fq6bx732vzxveelw@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20180324110756.GE69302@vurt.meerval.net> <9a03dbfb-a4c7-9ca2-22c4-d00a0d0d0223@nlnetlabs.nl> <CADyWQ+G7oR5M9pHgj5Ty+4yL1nsep2mpujLiE7nf__kVmN13fQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180328151939.GA19504@jurassic> <20180328152433.GB1788@server.ds9a.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180328152433.GB1788@server.ds9a.nl>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/qS9zuDBgPzFSqPJGhFU8VrCwzZc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:16:40 -0000

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:24:33PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> allow the one remaining closed source DNS implementation

!!!!

Really?  I'm so pleased we have not only candidate censors of what is
going to be published by the WG but also census-takers who have
determined then number and types of DNS implemntations in the
universe.

In case it isn't clear from the above, I am deeply uncomfortable with
the entire DNS-police-cum-government latent in this thread.  I think
interoperability is important and valuable.  I do not think that
creating a clubhouse of kool kids who decide what "is" a DNS
implementation is wise, however.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email