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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 20 December 2016 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 9330C1293E0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7RnWwKa2mT7S for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0128129430 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:54:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [46.227.151.81] (port=52639 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1cJPYR-0006ji-5Y (Exim 4.72) for dnsop@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:54:27 +0000
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CADyWQ+ETSd199ok0fgh=PB=--hW7buPgSoCg22aK51Bk4xxBmw@mail.gmail.com> <C18E2D4E-EE89-4AF6-B4A0-FAD1A7A01B5E@vpnc.org> <8f78a52b-01ae-f529-a1ec-d7eb90fe94be@bellis.me.uk> <6EBB4C5C-E2D9-40B9-86B8-03614804282D@vpnc.org> <20161220174650.GA884@server.ds9a.nl> <E6401D03-04D9-4884-ABC7-022C2E763B0C@vpnc.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <3a525a57-81fa-2125-aa44-207113b92c05@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:54:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E6401D03-04D9-4884-ABC7-022C2E763B0C@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/uGLRpOkSVQ_fTGYVVxWmX-yytME>
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 18:54:33 -0000


On 20/12/2016 18:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> It is statements like this which show that this WG working on this as an
> "Informational RFC" is dishonest and is sure to lead to massive
> dissatisfaction with the result.

AIUI, the authors *could* just request that it go AD Sponsored via the
Independent Submissions stream.

Having it here at least ensures that a variety of DNS folks can weigh in
on any bits that are unclear to them (albeit without any expectation
that the protocol itself would change as a result).  The result *should*
be a specification that's easier to read and implement.

Ray