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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've read this thread up to date. Reading the draft, a few minor things
occurred to me which I think might be small improvements, but I could be
wrong as I'm sure others have studied this more than me. And perhaps some
more warning should be sprinkled into it. But, when I get to the bottom
line, I believe that something reasonably close to it should be published
as an Informational RFC. I think it should be adopted by the WG. If not, it
might be best submitted as Independent, in which case the IESG will ask the
DNSOP WG for its comments. Either way, there will be the same political
argument in the WG which - as far as I can see form the comments so far -
favors publication. I think a higher quality draft would result if the
draft was processed through the WG.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:16 AM, tjw ietf <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Why not just wade into this discussion...
>
> The draft is being present as "Informational", and the point here is to
> document current working behavior in the DNS (for the past several years).
>   It is obvious that some feel this draft is a large mistake, but like
> edns-client-subnet, more operators are deploying this than one is aware of.
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-vixie-dns-rpz
>
>
> As an additional observation:
>
> The discussion already on the mailing list has shown a number of views on
> the legal and ethical implications of using RPZ, or publishing an
> Informational RFC about it.
>
> In the past, where there has been controversy about similar issues, the WG
> has sometimes declined to adopt a draft. If the draft had been adopted as a
> WG work item, the WG may have asked that the draft be modified to reflect
> those concerns. Sometimes the consensus has been to regard them as out of
> scope. Sometimes there’s been no way to get to consensus on a draft, and
> the WG involved hasn’t advanced it for publication.
>
> Ethical and legal issues, including those around DNS names and DNS
> operations, are complex and “the truth” varies widely with circumstance and
> jurisdiction, both of which tend to be determined outside of the IETF.
>
> If you feel you must comment on those aspects of RPZ, please keep it
> brief, avoid unsustainable generalizations,  and state clearly whether you
> support adoption, oppose adoption, or support adoption with changes you’re
> willing to work on.
>
>
> thanks,
> Suzanne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>