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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/13/2017 8:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2017, at 7:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 3/13/2017 4:11 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> The draft breaks DNSSEC.
>> ...
>>> I have proposed a method that would not change the RPZ response for a
>>> non-DNSSEC client, but would add data for DNSSEC capable clients to be
 >>
>> That sounds like an excellent bit of technical enhancement to
>> consider... /after/ documenting /existing/ practice.
>
> Why "after" and not "during"?That is, if the WG document tells how this
> one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document
> other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That
> would certainly give the reader more context.


They are fundamentally different exercises.

A baseline document for /existing/ practice is extremely common for the 
IETF to start with.  It provides clarity to the community and a stable 
platform for enhancement work.

Groups that try to simultaneously document existing practice /and/ 
define modifications tend to produce a confused specification.



d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net