Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 13 March 2015 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154D41A1BA4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 B485Lbl5hDbn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 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 217DD1A1BA2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.101] (50-1-99-2.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t2DK3H9n020389 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:03:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-99-2.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.99.2] claimed to be [10.20.30.101]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <55031D6F.1090902@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:03:16 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <37E7B688-FF47-4E2E-80F3-7F72BACF1DF3@vpnc.org>
References: <55031D6F.1090902@gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/z895QENsTjDPxpaH8Xgnhm8RGNU>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:03:21 -0000

On Mar 13, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries
> 
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries/
> 
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
> 
> The Chairs are aware that this document has generated discussion, if not strong opinions in multiple directions.  When stating your view, if you have any preference for the direction the document should go - as an Informational document that attempts to document existing behavior; or for possible Standards track document; and to the scope of the document (should it only cover ANY, or should it be more expressive, etc).
> 
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
> 
> This call for adoption ends Friday March 27th, 2015.  This CFA encases the WG meeting, so vigorous discussion can be made in person.

It is not suitable for adoption by the WG, but it might be later when the motivation section is corrected so that we can evaluate what appropriate actions, if any, are needed to meet those motivations. Two metaqueries (AXFR and IXFR) already have their ACL-related requirements specified, but without a clear motivation, the WG can't determine what to do with ANY, and can't determine whether to declare RRSIG to be a metaquery even though earlier RFCs said it was not.

--Paul Hoffman