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

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 10 March 2017 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85324129679 for <>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:00:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oHBZhw1kWP_l for <>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5737129664 for <>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v2AG2YeN006952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:02:35 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1489161755; bh=V7eJYxdtuV0k3tJp0SjmBoFIk7D9lVOB8/UvdnWh0Mk=; h=Subject:References:From:Reply-To:To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KbSuL3M3+H95t3bHVEt0ZA/TwOkJRYmRuinCRXRWsUikILtB4ONO5Xw2q0+evhXAW 939KDMx+tWl6Cl+7Flh4gXi+wByY9r5w/2N7wZfQmGUCPRcY4DU5J+DUZ3ZEw3zhLe ti8voA5xa1KTc+pivzEu08at9p/Gmb+kmhHwG73c=
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: dnsop <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:00:29 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:00:42 -0000

On 3/10/2017 5:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Once a document becomes a WG document the authors are required to
> incorporate WG consensus.
> If this does not / is not happening, the chairs have the option /
> responsibility to replace the authors with ones that do...
> W
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Paul Wouters <> wrote:
>> The authors clearly stated the document will describe only what is
>> currently implemented and they were not willing to make changes.
>> How can this ever turn into a real WG document?

While of course Warren's caution, above to authors and the wg, is always
valid, I think this misses an important point of confusion in this 
thread and in the specified adoption of this draft:

While yes, Vernon said the goal was documenting the current
implementation, so did the wg chair:

On 12/20/2016 7:16 AM, tjw ietf wrote:
> The draft is being present as "Informational", and the point here is
> to document current working behavior in the DNS (for the past
> severalyears).

When existing work is brought into the IETF, there is always a choice 
about how the current work should related to the existing effort.  For 
anything with a significant installed base, it is common -- and 
extremely helpful -- to first issue an RFC that details current practice.

The goal of the wg, then, is to ensure that the document is clear and 
accurate and useful... in terms of the established practice.  Again, 
this is an extremely common goal for an initial effort.

It is increasingly common for such existing work to have made 
engineering choices that sit poorly with some wg participants.  While 
there can be some academic satisfaction in debating superior 
alternatives, it isn't useful when documenting existing practice.

Or are folks now seeking to have the IETF eschew running code?

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking