> On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:16 AM, tjw ietf <[email protected]> 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). > It is obvious that some feel this draft is a large mistake, but like > edns-client-subnet, more operators are deploying this than one is aware of. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-vixie-dns-rpz
As an additional observation: The discussion already on the mailing list has shown a number of views on the legal and ethical implications of using RPZ, or publishing an Informational RFC about it. In the past, where there has been controversy about similar issues, the WG has sometimes declined to adopt a draft. If the draft had been adopted as a WG work item, the WG may have asked that the draft be modified to reflect those concerns. Sometimes the consensus has been to regard them as out of scope. Sometimes there’s been no way to get to consensus on a draft, and the WG involved hasn’t advanced it for publication. Ethical and legal issues, including those around DNS names and DNS operations, are complex and “the truth” varies widely with circumstance and jurisdiction, both of which tend to be determined outside of the IETF. If you feel you must comment on those aspects of RPZ, please keep it brief, avoid unsustainable generalizations, and state clearly whether you support adoption, oppose adoption, or support adoption with changes you’re willing to work on. thanks, Suzanne
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
