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

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

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