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

"Paul Hoffman" <> Tue, 20 December 2016 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01EF129C0F for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mNgk60SSS_yh for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Opus1.Proper.COM []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69BE129C09 for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id uBKHgnC4005662 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:42:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:25 -0800
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5310)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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