On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 04:09:32PM -0500, ?lafur Gu?mundsson wrote:At 16:58 19/11/2004, Rob Austein wrote:This is a working group last call on the "Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior" draft, draft-ietf-dnsop-bad-dns-res-03.txt, which we hope to submit to the IESG for consideration as a BCP document.
I support publishing this draft as a BCP.
My only reservation is with the use of standards-track language in a BCP. The recommendations are good and useful in substance, but I'm not entirely comfortable that we're doing as much as we reasonably could to discourage errant vendors in future.
I don't want to see the draft held up on that account, though, so I'd publish as-is and also open some discussion of whether the included recommendations should be pursued as a separate standards-track document (presumably in DNSEXT).
I think I'll have to re-iterate my earlier point, from June 2004, now, because it was probably forgotten:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg02940.html
Have these changes been reviewed and/or adopted by DNSEXT WG?
We've produced a similar document like this one at v6ops, and the IESG stomped on it, because they wanted that the concerned WGs fix the problem, e.g., by new specifications, not that possible fixes are just described in an informational RFC -- check out draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault in the I-D tracker if interested.
That is, if a dnsop document is proposing protocol fixes, those fixes must actually get in the dnsext pipeline, and we must actually wait for those fixes to be finalized before going forward. (Or, then we just remove the recommended protocol fixes.)
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
