Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard

Pete Resnick <> Fri, 06 March 2015 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90A21A1A45 for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:41:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URbFF-alhWlV for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F9E1A1A4D for <>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:41:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1425663688; x=1457199688; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9HROuHDHOD8p5XlEFoGdgwZMzRyavV2dk2Q2Twa364=; b=cuenq7x28xz50omPHsv1KroEw2iLw75dLRDFCFrFxLxAcju7b/jHy7Bn FVBp6ynABjCeZxQ4AXmyI6Em2K7b2DQnrDMNvnlZHauDCoBZL4hzN8juV JAC+6yrEpRj1yWKT2u+G4kGykWHwhAtGst3Lyb4ELN6N/NAyi7LpDQwXt Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7732"; a="84370215"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2015 09:41:27 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,353,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="31929389"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 06 Mar 2015 09:41:25 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:41:24 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:41:23 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: (short version) Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record) to Proposed Standard
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>,, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>, Mark Nottingham <>, Sam Hartman <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:41:44 -0000

Closing the loop:

On 3/6/15 8:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Friday, March 06, 2015 08:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
> <>  wrote:
>> I think that the security considerations in -10 are better
>> than what we seem to be wordsmithing on the list.
>> My preference is to call -10 good enough in this regard
>> especially given that it is informational.
>> I don't support  a desire to reduce the strength of security
>> warnings in the document, as I think John may be asking for.
> No, I'm not.  I think they are fine.  I just see diminishing
> returns in further holding the document up for fine tuning.  And
> I essentially agree with the part of Viktor's recent comments
> that I interpret as saying "good enough".
>> However personally I don' have the energy to really engage in
>> much more of a discussion for this document.
>> I think AS work is quite important,  and I hope that happens
>> at a time when I have energy to participate but it's far more
>> important to me that it happen regardless of my participation.
> Me too.  For both of us.

I just confirmed with Sam that of course he meant -12, not -10. So my 
conclusion is that we are going with -12, as an Informational RFC, with 
the one change being the change in example from Web to FTP.

Thanks to you all for helping drive this to completion.

On 3/6/15 9:52 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I would agree that on the whole we want people to register RR types
> through the standardization process.  However, if someone actually
> followed our process, as Patrik did, and defined the RR type and
> documented it, and then this document sat around for eight years, as it
> did, I don't think it's reasonable to hold Patrik accountable for that,
> and I think it discourages others from bringing work to the IETF.

There is a much longer discussion to be had on this topic than I'm 
willing to do here, but summarized: This experience puts an exclamation 
point on the thought that I've had for some time, that AD-sponsored 
documents, and doing things outside of the context of a WG generally, is 
a really bad idea if you want something standardized in the IETF. The 
reason that people have been doing so (whether consciously or just 
influenced to do so) is that the WG process and coming to consensus 
seemed (and truly was) hugely daunting. But we end up in situations like 
this, where things get developed without the iterative 
consensus-building that we're supposed to be doing. The better thing to 
do in order to not discourage others and to create good work is to 
improve the speed at which WGs get things done and make it less 
daunting, and I believe that we've been doing that of late: We've had 
several good examples of WGs that we've spun on quickly to do a focused 
piece of work, and they're done in months, not years. But more beer 
required to fully have that discussion.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478