[hrpc] [tjw.ietf@gmail.com: Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz]
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 20 March 2017 10:31 UTC
Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB65129B0E for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <aArhnYeXvF9E>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, MIME error: error: part did not end with expected boundary; ; error: unexpected end of parts before epilogue
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 aArhnYeXvF9E for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 A23AD129B01 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 857EE2801B9 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7C9E428027B; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EBD2801B9 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7094C60181CF for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6CE1F41B91; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:31:28 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: hrpc@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20170320103128.hwdtmrstte4gsd4i@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="thorhw2a7p7ybk5l"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.0
X-Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000003, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2017.3.20.102116
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/6Yg2Cqpkr-4NkqlTgMe3O5dUmVc>
Subject: [hrpc] [tjw.ietf@gmail.com: Re: DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz]
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "niels@article19.org" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:31:35 -0000
RPZ has been adopted by the IETF DNSOP working group (and the new draft published). This is interesting for us because most of the discussions pre-adoption were about human rights (RPZ can facilitate censorship), is technology neutral, etc.
--- Begin Message ---All The Call for Adoption on draft-vixie-dns-rpz ended some time ago, and the results were a solid in favor of adoption. However, the legitmacy of the argument in opposition to adopting seems fairly significant about certain parts of the draft. In discussing this with our AD, the opinion is that if this same opposition manifests in the IETF last call there would have reservations about advancing it. So if we consider this rough consensus for the purposes of adoption it means we believe we will be better off with an improved, working- group-owned document then this one. We’re going to go ahead and adopt it for DNSOP, with the intention of resolving the concerns people expressed by keeping the status as informational (not standards track) and making sure the cautions and limitations the WG discussed on the use of RPZ are clear in the document. thanks tim suzanne On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:16 AM, tjw ietf <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not just wade into this discussion... > > The draft is being present as "Informational", and the point here is to > document current working behavior in the DNS (for the past several years)--- End Message ---
- [hrpc] [tjw.ietf@gmail.com: Re: DNSOP Call for Ad… Stephane Bortzmeyer