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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 20 December 2016 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 B01EF129C0F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:28 -0800 (PST)
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] 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 mNgk60SSS_yh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 D69BE129C09 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.60] (50-1-51-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id uBKHgnC4005662 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:42:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.163] claimed to be [10.32.60.60]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:25 -0800
Message-ID: <6EBB4C5C-E2D9-40B9-86B8-03614804282D@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <8f78a52b-01ae-f529-a1ec-d7eb90fe94be@bellis.me.uk>
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <C18E2D4E-EE89-4AF6-B4A0-FAD1A7A01B5E@vpnc.org> <8f78a52b-01ae-f529-a1ec-d7eb90fe94be@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5310)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rVArccbtuMq-BhwMozdYkXG4fC4>
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: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:43:28 -0000

On 20 Dec 2016, at 8:35, Ray Bellis wrote:

> The document primarily covers BIND's behaviour.

Noted. That seems like a good reason for ISC to document it.

> It would be good if other implementations were completely compatible
> with that,

Is this so that different implementations use the same master file 
format, or something else?

> and this also forms the baseline for potential future
> enhancements which could be under IETF change control.

It is completely unnecessary for the future enhancements to be based on 
an RFC. The IETF has experience where trying to change a vendor-specific 
informational RFC to something better was harder than starting from 
"here's a way to do it; Appendix A shows the differences in how This Big 
Vendor did it earlier".


On 20 Dec 2016, at 8:44, Tim Wicinski wrote:

> Additionally, the authors are looking at addressing addressing several 
> additions, issues, etc with the followup  -bis draft which would be 
> more likely standards track.  This is following the edns-client-subnet 
> model for better or for worse

Worse. And there are other examples in other areas of the IETF where 
this turned out to be worse.

--Paul Hoffman