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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 20 December 2016 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 9D28C1295DF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 BcZFPPMQfEG4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0651295B1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.60] (50-1-51-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.163]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (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 paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-163.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.163] claimed to be [10.32.60.60]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: "Ray Bellis" <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:14:22 -0800
Message-ID: <42FB2AC5-14C2-46F0-8E94-A7A1152DFF6A@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <3a525a57-81fa-2125-aa44-207113b92c05@bellis.me.uk>
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> <3a525a57-81fa-2125-aa44-207113b92c05@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5310)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wvH9i7yKaHTd3DZm8qcr0qpLgLo>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
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 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