On 20 Dec 2016, at 10:54, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 20/12/2016 18:46, Paul Hoffman wrote:
It is statements like this which show that this WG working on this as
an
"Informational RFC" is dishonest and is sure to lead to massive
dissatisfaction with the result.
AIUI, the authors *could* just request that it go AD Sponsored via the
Independent Submissions stream.
Those are two different methods. AD-sponsored means that it still would
need IETF consensus, but no WG action. Independent Submission is
completely separate, and has no IETF consensus; however, the ISE has to
ask the IESG if there are any conflicts with IETF activities, and since
there is a -bis planned, that might be a blocker.
Having it here at least ensures that a variety of DNS folks can weigh
in
on any bits that are unclear to them (albeit without any expectation
that the protocol itself would change as a result). The result
*should*
be a specification that's easier to read and implement.
Quite true, but that is has not been the case in the past.
If all people want is a technical specification that says "some software
will react in this way when it sees zones specified this way", that can
be done as a very short WG document that is quite different than
draft-vixie-dns-rpz. However, I suspect that the differences would be so
great that the authors of draft-vixie-dns-rpz, who have put a lot of
work into promoting the use cases for RPZ, might not want to make the
drastic changes.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
