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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

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