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

"Paul Hoffman" <> Tue, 20 December 2016 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D28C1295DF for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:29 -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 BcZFPPMQfEG4 for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:28 -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 1D0651295B1 for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id uBKKDj4L010191 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:13:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be []
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: Ray Bellis <>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:22 -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 20:14:29 -0000

On 20 Dec 2016, at 10:54, Ray Bellis wrote:

> 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.

Those are two different methods. AD-sponsored means that it still would 
need IETF consensus, but no WG action. Independent Submission is 
completely separate, and has no IETF consensus; however, the ISE has to 
ask the IESG if there are any conflicts with IETF activities, and since 
there is a -bis planned, that might be a blocker.

> 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.

Quite true, but that is has not been the case in the past.

If all people want is a technical specification that says "some software 
will react in this way when it sees zones specified this way", that can 
be done as a very short WG document that is quite different than 
draft-vixie-dns-rpz. However, I suspect that the differences would be so 
great that the authors of draft-vixie-dns-rpz, who have put a lot of 
work into promoting the use cases for RPZ, might not want to make the 
drastic changes.

--Paul Hoffman