From nobody Mon Nov 14 00:28:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5212C129491 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:28:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Q1bAiMObS_Xc for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:28:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5271293E3 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id a10so50785569ywa.3 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:28:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SWBqo6vQuVzG9pNdF5tEdrshoZggaYxSKnP/lw87APo=; b=Y7ffivq/pak/vEyMhrPlku3CLsqDbotSMu+6O81bx9T4cPzFI8wC5Kfu9QgVl1s++0 5EOYZCCGrAr6apbGBulm1LoMW+xbX679KeURaukfUuTiemKhnjaVnpyGaPaCnQjsemjb EXLfohfiySjxi480gTg7WAKozbkVFysa8IlCARYMqtXS1kwcSkrgbmK9xFbYdAN3NxF6 QkY8hPx9ghmpK09aJJYvhmtzxC1/VjZe91bsB/wURIp+GrDMcuwXayXxD6D47UMKhuLd 84X38tfE9qJYSt8lyHoJzPkXFVeDOW+eHdM/R3Cxwf9KA0vnDkOoaWKElicCzYmw9ws3 bbbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=SWBqo6vQuVzG9pNdF5tEdrshoZggaYxSKnP/lw87APo=; b=KBFHkEAlyA2FtQy5Wj2iCHoXKJCehxsX+nsQTroEyJzafQH3SsaBOcMtVHHANwTKSr 260u1rUZuDNZiJ/G8xmfIeSw+EumlmrfQonpFsxzMKMuMlCZLJEczC0BqsUdMK4DV7n6 YMnomZtphl2V494VdUqmkLWxHj0nrRCAU4tiSqcTrzuB8I48wFycih0eEeig6V35O0XB ka0XNuxgavhvdzrBUrcOqaQ+RM0mFE9h0FwLMVEyWtWBMapqFtSO9gRBkxIkYosl0P3q EnFxIZbuF4zBr1xM24ULRNet2M44OWONW4hoLHvyjPpkbA0fntucwPau/L+3OTAnE5xH Abkw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfxq8KIrTFfvucbLToBaLiNwNMQ95fCYU/fW7+Qm0uar2rEsqG4JANBgCQpIN5fjlqATLx4tPpMA6eaCg== X-Received: by 10.13.249.133 with SMTP id j127mr14721409ywf.18.1479112119923; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:28:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.111.130 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 00:28:39 -0800 (PST) From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:28:39 +0900 Message-ID: To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0826947dd1f405413ea08f Archived-At: Subject: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:28:42 -0000 --94eb2c0826947dd1f405413ea08f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Colleagues, Your chairs have been meeting with our Area Directors at IETF 97 in Seoul to discuss the fate of DBOUND. We had our BoF in the spring of 2014 and the WG was formally approved the following spring. In the year and a half since, we have made almost no progress toward a solution to either the combined or reduced problem space. Although we have a few proposals before us, we have seen no convergence on any of them, nor has there been a sustained critical mass of participants to work on our chartered goals. At this point, we're not sure what else to try. We are basically resigned to the idea that DBOUND as currently constituted will not succeed in producing something supported by IETF consensus. We propose to concede and ask our Area Directors to shut down the working group at the end of this week, barring a convincing argument not to do so. We can request that the WG's list remain open for discussion of any of the current or future proposals on the topic, and any participants that want to advance one or more of them can do so via the ART area's current "dispatch" model. Comments welcome. -MSK and Pete, your co-chairs --94eb2c0826947dd1f405413ea08f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colleagues,

Your chairs have been meeting with our = Area Directors at IETF 97 in Seoul to discuss the fate of DBOUND.

We had our BoF in the spring of 2014 and the WG was formally approved the=20 following spring.=C2=A0 In the year and a half since, we have made almost n= o=20 progress toward a solution to either the combined or reduced problem=20 space.=C2=A0 Although we have a few proposals before us, we have seen no=20 convergence on any of them, nor has there been a sustained critical mass of participants to work on our chartered goals.

At this=20 point, we're not sure what else to try.=C2=A0 We are basically resigned= to=20 the idea that DBOUND as currently constituted will not succeed in=20 producing something supported by IETF consensus.=C2=A0 We propose to conced= e=20 and ask our Area Directors to shut down the working group at the end of=20 this week, barring a convincing argument not to do so.=C2=A0 We can request= =20 that the WG's list remain open for discussion of any of the current or= =20 future proposals on the topic, and any participants that want to advance one or more of them can do so via the ART area's current "dispatc= h"=20 model.

Comments welcome.

-MSK and Pete, your co-chairs
--94eb2c0826947dd1f405413ea08f-- From nobody Tue Nov 15 04:59:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5867129583 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:59:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 h-wlRIJRbDdx for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [50.116.54.116]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87ABF129536 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 04:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA33109F7 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7RyY04BUR28H for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (dhcp-91c9.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.145.201]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1517910616 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 07:59:15 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20161115125915.GB51667@mx2.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: [dbound] On a path to closing X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:23 -0000 Dear colleagues, I spoke with Jeff tonight, and we would like to make a modest proposal as a way of closing the WG: that we polish off and publish the problem statement, in an effort at least to get something written down about what issues there are and what distinctions someone might want to make. At the same time, we discussed addressing outstanding comments about SOPA and publishing it as an experimental RFC somehow (i.e. either ISE or AD sponsored). This ought to be possible: an RRTYPE allocation is expert review and I think we have something sufficiently clear as to meet the requirements. It strikes me that I probably just should have followed that path ages agoin order to test whether any of this was viable. I guess I know better for the future. In the meantime, though, does anyone object to pursuing experimental status (assuming we can specify what would provide evidence that the experiment worked)? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Tue Nov 15 05:24:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC541295A1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:24:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 5vaccs_NV3LC for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA242129460 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l8so1323463iti.1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:24:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7w/XiH5Q1rlP9gjMMbzl0hwSRkr+t/6hrinG+Eg63g8=; b=Z3YLc0bkxfdxg9QXuw4PvjIdwQ95m8fdmzJUAtuVcJMtk6ZJQ1bmkweHrs5lgNmaao ovmwHSddchTKV7rZGiSfnB15UKHNeM8bwXNEci1+DRktgUVibcvZr4+8z7FNk1l59CnR schFhh0IFfd2dw8XvFkwP2atDpzmcZCWuTXNwWLS7Uag0zLZ+txXHu2FpeYSv6qSLmCX ZOTLszbHjyksPevgiyOrNvr9iGL4Jnjwll0aPemPnt6niVwd3n7LGLNfDSe/NVlEzQps bl2pfjRl6a1N4eHzNFDuutKc8HB88+lx11OnKf0knrRh+qk72ku2sN6TWeFsOXUjIshT 4Qkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=7w/XiH5Q1rlP9gjMMbzl0hwSRkr+t/6hrinG+Eg63g8=; b=CZEPGTX5kHCbZc+kD6dJYJbVez40VdiTn/QEs2HeqTvytHT5CQh+8ACBSpWsngDs24 FLle3PtOJKz79GRp7wt5GIeTfbpd7N1jtRkltrY0+XVqXXKrW+ikkxMRklvr1w1DDy0m 0gaKBQH1TtqeEicGhtW8WWX8W3aE1/D4UKUwMTeJdh+avo7kE57Ba8R2qpyEW5OUmImn 9lDX5adRlJxZWZSgAoCS+z69UPjySJ2KVvEIdiRUFsyJKGoXX4nRkQqdRu1N1ayYDXCX T/GmmKK4XkenS6BVf4DudRn6uOP5T76EKmzJ0Okz3ndMP4ghx/qnq++DBm22AMJ3k1zM Becg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveTTjhHktL2Ajb3pecEbo5ARA69RmmZYaawh9tLZQne0q1x5dLQO8kbPxRQzQdVeVzMnLCD39aKLwUXTQ== X-Received: by 10.107.26.80 with SMTP id a77mr29927468ioa.109.1479216241104; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:24:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.116.36 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 05:24:00 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Walton Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:24:00 -0500 Message-ID: To: "dbound@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [dbound] Would it be possible to provide a quick specification for a per-domain Robots.txt-like text file? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: noloader@gmail.com List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:24:03 -0000 Before the group closes, would it be possible to provide a specification for a per-domain Robots.txt-like text file? My thinking is, a Robots.txt-like file will allow a subdomain to signal: * stop inheriting an administrative responsibilities from a parent * delegate to an external domain of their choosing It seems to be an easier problem: * it does not need infrastructure changes * it does not require advanced knowledge by users * it only needs a basic grammar Absence of a Robots.txt-like text file in the subdomain means keep doing things as usual, which is no worse than we have now. It dos not affect existing PSL files, like Mozilla runs. Lessons learned from the PSL file may help with a grammar. Once you see how well it works or does not work, then you can move it into DNS at your leisure. For security considerations, it seems to be no worse than any other TOFU scheme. It seems to be no worse than a DNS based system since a subdomain can be subverted at DNS by the domain owner/operator, too. Jeff From nobody Tue Nov 15 11:44:54 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B231293D8 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com 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 cUdHOgdYO5Pe for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5D481294F6 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f82so21750895wmf.1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CLOuDaj7o/fAzORh8NR6jHMVrquZWacNrTDMFLb2KKc=; b=O/alJXTbbam2EFTK9U7MDvEg8zOXwgMnLXhUnd+DJxaz0ajHWP3J9uba6MQk4yUPTD tRwfwRXm0nMoV/XWbwjRCGtzVbyNXgtm4KoNX8Z/Usf6OWwD11PI5KjEx3MP//QN+OOC bSj6sManaFf5eWUyJhwQbO2v/kaEBf+mwRUMc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CLOuDaj7o/fAzORh8NR6jHMVrquZWacNrTDMFLb2KKc=; b=QA8HV73FOYlbkd0hIsHCO5mHb/d6Fvd0vZ/JjPoWspQ7EqHW8frqLxIMGfORKXw9R5 N24mhi5nK9RPzMEcYWWrC838He+ptmduLYXnqrku3aQW7Onyw9If6Bk+zGLFnHWCWPXv z6w+XY3A9Nkr0Kaeg4CUPBIwib49OraBnadMz1xV4KCVkich5zq7E0P8urSH8oCPjJhI ScAi5OiuEII57k0aMwx+Pd2mKnTIHzCsfqpfIxNUDNrEedZzmkAWo4ao25YcwhoSdJKr yvSAdDDA7d4QBpCBP7CxLDtrUNjhux/04qN2WFzeCx7vMGqc6Qmvu7zotZvmuvn4xzUU uI7A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdRj5swwSGLBoz0KmZzpST9meSJe1BlQWw1Qjh5zEgsvzXwZTOhwCLbXWWv5RZZzsn9fmXeCZ036d5IbQ== X-Received: by 10.25.99.27 with SMTP id x27mr9823199lfb.128.1479239090131; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.22.73 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161115125915.GB51667@mx2.yitter.info> References: <20161115125915.GB51667@mx2.yitter.info> From: Kurt Andersen Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:44:49 -0800 Message-ID: To: Andrew Sullivan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0ec214816f8405415c30cf Archived-At: Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dbound] On a path to closing X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:44:53 -0000 --94eb2c0ec214816f8405415c30cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > . . .proposal > as a way of closing the WG: that we polish off and publish the problem > statement, in an effort at least to get something written down about > what issues there are and what distinctions someone might want to > make. > What sort of document artifact would that be? Just an I-D defining the problem space? > ...does anyone object to > pursuing experimental status (assuming we can specify what would > provide evidence that the experiment worked)? Seems reasonable. And probably a good basis for keeping this list open to manage the experiment. --Kurt --94eb2c0ec214816f8405415c30cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com= > wrote:
. . .proposal
as a way of closing the WG: that we polish off and publish the problem
statement, in an effort at least to get something written down about
what issues there are and what distinctions someone might want to
make.

What sort of document artifact wo= uld that be? Just an I-D defining the problem space?=C2=A0
=C2=A0=
...does anyone object to
pursuing experimental status (assuming we can specify what would
provide evidence that the experiment worked)?

Seems reasonable. And probably a good basis for keeping this list open t= o manage the experiment.

--Kurt =C2=A0
=
--94eb2c0ec214816f8405415c30cf-- From nobody Tue Nov 15 13:05:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A69129570 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:05:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 UZRso7x55rXL for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB1212955E for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D104109FC for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:05:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DH2armzIM2Ut for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (dhcp-91c9.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.145.201]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27FD410616 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:05:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:05:17 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20161115210517.GD51667@mx2.yitter.info> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dbound] Would it be possible to provide a quick specification for a per-domain Robots.txt-like text file? X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:05:23 -0000 On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 08:24:00AM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > Before the group closes, would it be possible to provide a > specification for a per-domain Robots.txt-like text file? I'm sure it would, but since we made no progress on all the other approaches to this problem that have been proposed I have doubts that a new approach would get more traction. But the I-D repo is open :) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Tue Nov 15 13:37:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7E61295DA for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=deccio.net 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 NR21pIy3jWb4 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x234.google.com (mail-pf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A96A612946E for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id c4so26227996pfb.1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=deccio.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1mUKcuco5fKs3qORib1qlC0M80JB2+02QejemgTirgE=; b=ObusDcLwjSXMMlGpY75lqnv1VjT2KLUm8sLjGITdFTIH/8RrUril91CqqxUbQ04h6+ mmQKZFtXh2hbNIqRppe2dir/cLqPGQA0b4tAYGP+0vfXh6B9Q4O6fYIPgyBUb+e3RCiu ZxrZQZcDlFiDYV/mXNLObzAIm1kDyugWwHLpw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1mUKcuco5fKs3qORib1qlC0M80JB2+02QejemgTirgE=; b=it2jt2DwBhlRPe/WzPiTA3VLq9V/JhbgvaXiACG8Ez8OFiXdL1t6Dl086O6vudDHLA NOOKTgIUv3hGq/2SFkbnJRGc1PdKy3Qw3Q/a9ykeY8iIW+lL2kChV5SXPQVbIkOUDM4E jMFp1cMhWR8LtuwwyZIg5ka96DJe3T01+/GoPj4DfeL4OAWDkLP0TJNvK8cxEHwH+/wy 7p4PiPqtOz1L2NRdUelj2IXzJS2MBInIEU8LPNf/f208vjlrxNUxhPcoKfOe0wXzzviG BMV4hubhBK4KNi6uE7WorYLQSTITinqXAim5x+2R3xGxSWoNGfsjCKFFS6YJ00t90b9j Vgeg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfkkdpG5F/u8K2SFPQwHm0oGX7ONb0ijIZEte+6BVKllI/MMmKOMFGfWuKN/DAumQ== X-Received: by 10.98.19.137 with SMTP id 9mr50251391pft.150.1479245863243; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.221.145] ([204.93.49.152]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 72sm16677429pfw.37.2016.11.15.13.37.42 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Casey Deccio In-Reply-To: <20161115125915.GB51667@mx2.yitter.info> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:37:43 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20161115125915.GB51667@mx2.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: dbound@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dbound] On a path to closing X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:37:45 -0000 > On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan = wrote: >=20 > Dear colleagues, >=20 > I spoke with Jeff tonight, and we would like to make a modest proposal > as a way of closing the WG: that we polish off and publish the problem > statement, in an effort at least to get something written down about > what issues there are and what distinctions someone might want to > make. >=20 > At the same time, we discussed addressing outstanding comments about > SOPA and publishing it as an experimental RFC somehow (i.e. either ISE > or AD sponsored). This ought to be possible: an RRTYPE allocation is > expert review and I think we have something sufficiently clear as to > meet the requirements. >=20 > It strikes me that I probably just should have followed that path ages > agoin order to test whether any of this was viable. I guess I know > better for the future. In the meantime, though, does anyone object to > pursuing experimental status (assuming we can specify what would > provide evidence that the experiment worked)? While I have no particular objection, the same could be asked for the = other proposed solutions. ODUP [1] has proof-of-concept library code = [2], which has been tested both in OpenDMARC for experimental use with = DMARC and Firefox for experimental use with HTTP cookies. Casey [1] = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deccio-dbound-organizational-domain-poli= cy-03 [2] https://github.com/verisign/odup= From nobody Tue Nov 15 23:16:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA6D12954A for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:16:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 7k2JGfYBKbIr for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 1EC281294D4 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 23:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.32.60.66] (dhcp-8990.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.139.144] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id uAG7GW7B039227 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:16:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host dhcp-8990.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.139.144] (may be forged) claimed to be [10.32.60.66] From: "Paul Hoffman" To: "dbound@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:16:43 +0900 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.5r5263) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:16:47 -0000 Andrew has suggested that SOPA be published as an experimental RFC, and Casey asked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would be a vast disservice if they were progressed differently, and if draft-levine-dbound-dns wasn't treated the same way. Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on all three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial and technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey for AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and IESG review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is willing to do this.) On 15 Nov 2016, at 21:59, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I spoke with Jeff tonight, and we would like to make a modest proposal > as a way of closing the WG: that we polish off and publish the problem > statement, in an effort at least to get something written down about > what issues there are and what distinctions someone might want to > make. On this, I disagree with Andrew. The problem statement document hasn't been touched in over six months and I think has many use cases that probably do not have consensus. We would need to do a bunch more work (hopefully culling) that I don't think we have the energy to. It is not the IETF way, but publishing a couple of related experimental protocols that have only their own internal problem statements seems better to me than hoping we have enough energy to agree on a single statement. --Paul Hoffman From nobody Wed Nov 16 00:10:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C105812965A for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:10:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 taAGXhwQNGVh for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:10:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944E9129671 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from healthyao-PC (unknown [159.226.7.2]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0B5gHxyFCxYErA+Bw--.20284S2; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:10:28 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:10:27 +0800 From: "Jiankang Yao" To: "Paul Hoffman" , dbound References: , X-Priority: 3 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201611161609515307625@cnnic.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart426261177132_=----" X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0B5gHxyFCxYErA+Bw--.20284S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrtw4rAFyrKr4UZw4xWw4DArb_yoWxtrg_C3 yvgFs3JrW7GanFgr1xCr4Yqr10grsY9F1fGw45GF45XryDZws7Xrnrtr9Igr1xG39rA345 W3Z7Z3yUJ347ujkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUbf8YjsxI4VWxJwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8CjxkF64kEwVA0rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVW8JVW5JwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0 cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26F4UJVW0owA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_GcCE3s1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG6xAIxVCF xsxG0wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1lOx8S6xCaFV Cjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAY jxAxZF0Ex2IqxwCY02Avz4vE14v_GFyl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7 v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF 1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIx AIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyU JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMVCEFc xC0VAYjxAxZFUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU0bdbUUUUUU== X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/ Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: yaojk List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:10:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart426261177132_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQoNCkZyb206IFBhdWwgSG9mZm1hbg0KRGF0ZTogMjAxNi0xMS0xNiAxNToxNg0KVG86IGRib3Vu ZEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtkYm91bmRdIFRoZSBGYXRlIG9mIERCT1VORA0KDQo+ UHJvcG9zYWw6IHRoZSBXRyBzdGF5cyBvcGVuLCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIG5lYXItaW1tZWRpYXRlIFdH IExhc3QgQ2FsbCBvbiANCj5hbGwgdGhyZWUgcHJvdG9jb2wgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGluIG9yZGVyIHRv IGNvbGxlY3QgYSBsYXN0IHJvdW5kIG9mIA0KPmVkaXRvcmlhbCBhbmQgdGVjaG5pY2FsIChub3Qg ZGVzaWduKSBjb21tZW50cywgYW5kIHRoZW4gYWxsIHRocmVlIGFyZSANCj5tb3ZlZCB0byBBbGV4 ZXkgZm9yIEFELXNwb25zb3JlZCBhcyBFeHBlcmltZW50YWwuIFRoYXQgZG9lcyBpbmNsdWRlIGFu IA0KPklFVEYgTGFzdCBDYWxsIGFuZCBJRVNHIHJldmlldywgYnV0IEFsZXhleSBjYW4gY292ZXIg dGhhdC4gKFRoaXMgaXMgDQo+YXNzdW1pbmcgdGhhdCBBbGV4ZXkgaXMgd2lsbGluZyB0byBkbyB0 aGlzLikNCj4NCg0KSSBnZW5lcmFsbHkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBQYXVsJ3Mgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbi4NCg0K aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXlhby1kYm91bmQtZG5zLXNvbHV0aW9u LTAyIA0KDQppcyBpdCBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byBwdWJsaXNoIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBhYm92ZSBhcyB0aGUg ZXhwZXJpbWVudGFsIG9uZSB0b28/DQoNCg0KSmlhbmthbmcgWWFv ------=_001_NextPart426261177132_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
Date: 2016-11-16 15:16
Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND
 
 ------=_001_NextPart426261177132_=------ From nobody Wed Nov 16 05:50:47 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DFB12957A for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 2e9U_ebI3_61 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D320129465 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i145so124699364ywg.2 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HXEs078+2qP0RYVe7UM+/BC+fIIP0hxjvK2s4elF7O4=; b=Ub94wF50RrstKNSFsniVJ2p//d1yv4pp6nuyrw4TLkFQhsdJfaxrSJce919zA4ULmB EwZpvvem53HjdCf6wtxominFEja6UjYNum02DKJSfyxBtqJDSA3GtCZTFsHbVSNnMS+H cVjNHI2mJyAM/aXfaiWG/UvZD6Rfn4Wrpbm9FR3JTGYf87uzjtZtjtmJmFG0fWp79K57 DdkNxfqGaf3/9k5zQoq2L6uib/LttS3N5pGTA3LGunpQ6Hvuhw98BNVQNJyD5ZjNIklG mmm/C8Gj8TCuTZ01zJgKtTwPL4iPB08eiyK2xYyULxPmdK3/jW28vxb9E8BgU0od/l9a YMWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HXEs078+2qP0RYVe7UM+/BC+fIIP0hxjvK2s4elF7O4=; b=BpsSQyfZkLm8HCGZ1y7fXnxkRqwRk8kDUvhhH/3HT+hK6CsjaLEHp9Eo7fgnTBq4+T 1fd1tFiB927RMVz0PXnFipHV0/f17HEc61cA+maIWJEFp7Wws2HHJI8D7R4/2KjWbM62 afftQ+U/osLYWb+0WYRrlpvw/N0hVaab43lJxfug7t7W/SaSmSQUJ66FrlRXCiWystOg LZIEDUQ2+sxHbw5UpTNyhuzl1cMnv6K7dCnkn9wbA2bHFZYg3k6SNMJi2Y+OAqasAioR Ryfjsi6p3dCSLDYYQ7LcevSpE04OjyYp4fRlIsCu2hCy6NTWhoRP3lallYFSdcVVQbgo 1KGA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcykktO9GCnT5QQUIFEq/F4FYhI3E9pGhKQ7Ai3zIHrHqmvlcHnl3rt+xT3QyWWCXh0uzJ6113bQkp+9w== X-Received: by 10.129.77.68 with SMTP id a65mr2906651ywb.287.1479304243168; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.111.130 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:50:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:50:42 +0900 Message-ID: To: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140b770ede86105416b5b34 Archived-At: Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:50:46 -0000 --001a1140b770ede86105416b5b34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Andrew has suggested that SOPA be published as an experimental RFC, and > Casey asked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would be a vast > disservice if they were progressed differently, and if > draft-levine-dbound-dns wasn't treated the same way. > > Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on all > three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial and > technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey for > AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and IESG > review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is willing > to do this.) > I just had dinner and a beer with Pete so I sure wish I'd seen this first so we could've discussed it. Therefore, speaking only for myself at the moment: I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft) some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, who's going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the effectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the results and observations, to where will they be reported, etc. I don't want Experimental to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize. (See also RFC2026 and https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html.) Absent that, we could consider Informational, or people can feel free to avail themselves of the Independent stream or the DISPATCH path, or whatever publication route they wish. In the alternative, if somewhere down the line it's clear critical mass has finally appeared, the group could be rechartered and reactivated. -MSK --001a1140b770ede86105416b5b34 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.h= offman@vpnc.org> wrote:
Andre= w has suggested that SOPA be published as an experimental RFC, and Casey as= ked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would be a vast disservice= if they were progressed differently, and if draft-levine-dbound-dns wasn&#= 39;t treated the same way.

Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on all = three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial and = technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey for= AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and IESG= review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is willin= g to do this.)

I just had dinner and a = beer with Pete so I sure wish I'd seen this first so we could've di= scussed it.=C2=A0 Therefore, speaking only for myself at the moment:
I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draf= t) some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to b= uild the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, w= ho's going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the e= ffectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the resul= ts and observations, to where will they be reported, etc.=C2=A0 I don't= want Experimental to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize.= =C2=A0 (See also RFC2026 and https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-exper= imental.html.)

Absent that, we could consi= der Informational, or people can feel free to avail themselves of the Indep= endent stream or the DISPATCH path, or whatever publication route they wish= .=C2=A0 In the alternative, if somewhere down the line it's clear criti= cal mass has finally appeared, the group could be rechartered and reactivat= ed.

-MSK
--001a1140b770ede86105416b5b34-- From nobody Wed Nov 16 13:10:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D216E129596 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 1yU2en5sSJxf for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EF7129456 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id x23so80251500pgx.1 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:references:reply-to:to:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pvVdAXev6roXdEvrLMe7JJN6nGJxgeTlsZjWE6vD0qY=; b=cFCpcWlCmVgcFYDR69rBK6IWpFKTwwXB9/1sRKEZFEt9T+XD/BjhhAvA3qMHnQP+Ic RfGPp+KLKT94FYxI5qAb936+U/Slun1oj5C7JjHFYMK5Z1XpGlMyLTJ4bvt/zGzyPcIW 3NwYEDDivN+bUajhw+z7CMZPgsp5Dstu6KuwWw3VZHInt+xPT/HWi81YawkXCb3CLE9o VPFJjsrwM5CUATC5fKisqsjnnQucy+IyAfNkETfTEh87VjAbBT96Hk57tcp5sgMd0KW8 8TlpOgK5SzrKQ0jXxnANSMR8OMIlXuNSJ3xrAaw/G4h5vq7yJyo5PAO0TVBgFG+x79Pf Oinw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:references:reply-to:to:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pvVdAXev6roXdEvrLMe7JJN6nGJxgeTlsZjWE6vD0qY=; b=djo4J6X0UGIO2gx42PwnPiSfxsjdT2e+ADZAT/ILJDkObTijAti5EgnEiVmvRzSl+w QqLRTFwLNVDeb3u++fLUzUD5Ov5KlEFbYFtsT33hrC9W7Zdl2NjP3eiob+NKHQTsp6WP KOJM4/JxAwYmPJJnqqz1rT5emT6LB2urd6q5ro2Bvny7dUwYbPWg33YdUva6eace3Qe6 aVOjKmjsTx8hMRLdnmxJeY9gl/UI9Pv4SSjZt0gXcbDZf3qZ5jnZbspioIJSfV7AdPXv fFeL7JGQ2rP2Jpakn4xA7+qYrWCj5vZMCCa7gPEcb5//RLeIklLG1CnnllrnIpNgYzxA JCvg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdRbTy1za3F5Og7qyHj8vHN/2TQyUxgjCOppBDWdgi2TMT3QbNsWJwdbL3zeMmYAQ== X-Received: by 10.99.142.201 with SMTP id k192mr12468112pge.174.1479330617957; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.30.1.56] ([175.193.196.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y20sm56811459pfj.26.2016.11.16.13.10.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:10:17 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Crocker X-Google-Original-From: Dave Crocker References: To: "dbound@ietf.org" Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking Message-ID: <27410fdd-fb10-9d6c-6027-1ef7ce25826c@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:09:58 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:10:20 -0000 On 11/16/2016 5:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft) > some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build > the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, who's > going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the > effectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the > results and observations, to where will they be reported, etc. Carrying this a bit further: Competing proposals get published when there is strong support for each and a failure to reconcile the support down to a single proposal. We have the latter condition, but I have missed the clear indication of the former. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Wed Nov 16 14:07:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8649A1295AE for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:07:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 PlWQOK8tyTAK for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:07:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (mx2.yitter.info [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF55012955E for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:07:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id A091010A06 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:07:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx2.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SvYa2_jXFMnl for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.yitter.info (dhcp-9c2a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.156.42]) by mx2.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 241A6106F6 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:06:57 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: dbound@ietf.org Message-ID: <20161116220656.GF56064@mx2.yitter.info> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 22:07:04 -0000 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:50:42PM +0900, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft) > some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build > the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, who's > going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the > effectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the > results and observations, to where will they be reported, etc. I don't > want Experimental to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize. > (See also RFC2026 and > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html.) I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Experimental, because I think it's too prescriptive, but I certainly intended to add to the draft I've worked on some experiment parameters. What I had in mind was this: 1. What the difference is supposed to be in the presence or absence of a SOPA record. 2. What the necessary code and operational additions are. 3. What would qualify as a functional proof of utility. 4. What would qualify as a practical proof of utility (i.e. that this approach could in fact be used at Internet scale). 5. Considerations of additional utility that might be found, and what the consequences of that would be for the results of the experiment. That is, I want the status to be experiment_al_, but not necessarily "experiment". There's no promise anyone _would_ do this experiment, just that it is available for such uses. I'm prepared to put a deprecation date on the RRTYPE if people really feel that is necessary, though the RRTYPE registry doesn't really have a way to do that. I agree that experimental shouldn't be used as a consolation prize. But my claim is that the approach John has advocated doesn't solve my problem and that Casey's approach is too complicated to be practical. Others have claimed that SOPA is not useful given the incentives in the system. All of these are empirical claims that could be answered by trying the different approaches out, and I think that's what "experimental" ought to mean. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From nobody Wed Nov 16 15:27:50 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6851294E3 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:27:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 NlsGYODoZNzJ for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B2221293DB for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id a10so143033389ywa.3 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:27:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m+nnFZpnj4snZcL6STdjTONtbpsS79tXvWvCXZFUAMw=; b=pKchMI0OlGjjUObZTTru6psyrywH6Iruv9ub8pZ4jCuEedd7P2yHFcr3KOwNaLYAQf cgwaHqnlwIK2eqF6/Rg8IR+ujqPGk32OQ76m1TU9m3H6ovCYRgM7iCwrysrYAQQbsTVx ys5IMD610Gp1o98g74usrebBH/hKIS6yd+1mlLpgxRGYb1y1n2oKMeKbpmHTCUkgn7Z4 lu/JAtJne8n7/N1iSNJ4oyTb8fkb95YjSZzsz+qTNJzxd+6AcWgqwqBcJPGdsv8eX/Vz rfVHMcPpVXL6vB1o1Y5pqVg6qhtxfqmXXEu7d3YVdg7xpuTfGbtIfT7NuxLZsYEkBnpi qDYw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m+nnFZpnj4snZcL6STdjTONtbpsS79tXvWvCXZFUAMw=; b=cgEPY/RQuMWEO+B9XiKN7gjFd/I/hXX7abIWOKOYImvdSh5pXImGRt46KqLsw0MlIm ZIxBdJrjutGuTxNL9AuEpoTVZmAxRfdUuNeHQ+jYMotoON5HXHu1kFspKKxM0Ky2yX0D UwYBpE4Zp1sjvrBVey9JqMOEVJdYPoPhlADot02hRDqb06ccNdDMoM2cNDJLqhCbxcEX gKXHLM/I6qwus7B+HZ65eXmNesmxSAznsx3YCUlbuULvYlCYvVAyeMFy4pifUA9i5/ri pm13M6uLHzunWmQKY6KDFcFaXpGD/aWalWk/OuU8wkk+o3+GEHbF6N+cpckCBaGtzX9M aehw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngve19sbD5E6/t2THvn5apv4qdGMntkouH8GPNBb5i+F+psEhJH1zsaqQj1eKrV8AXYO8h4EZXUNwOodUHA== X-Received: by 10.129.99.195 with SMTP id x186mr155188ywb.182.1479338867640; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:27:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.111.130 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:27:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161116220656.GF56064@mx2.yitter.info> References: <20161116220656.GF56064@mx2.yitter.info> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:27:46 +0900 Message-ID: To: Andrew Sullivan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114920f8b54f700541736b83 Archived-At: Cc: "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:27:49 -0000 --001a114920f8b54f700541736b83 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Experimental, > because I think it's too prescriptive, but I certainly intended to add > to the draft I've worked on some experiment parameters. What I had in > mind was this: > [...] > Mainly I base that on the one Experimental AD-sponsored draft I've had published previously and what's written in that IESG statement. I'm anticipating what we'll be asked when sending any of these documents for publication. Maybe this IESG is softer than my past experience. -MSK --001a114920f8b54f700541736b83 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Andrew Sullivan <aj= s@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Experime= ntal,
because I think it's too prescriptive, but I certainly intended to add<= br> to the draft I've worked on some experiment parameters.=C2=A0 What I ha= d in
mind was this:
[...]

Mainly I base that on the one Exp= erimental AD-sponsored draft I've had published previously and what'= ;s written in that IESG statement.=C2=A0 I'm anticipating what we'l= l be asked when sending any of these documents for publication.=C2=A0 Maybe= this IESG is softer than my past experience.

-MSK
--001a114920f8b54f700541736b83-- From nobody Wed Nov 16 16:37:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71EA51293E9 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com 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 pVzPo63d2zV5 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFBF7126579 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id j191so6452477ita.1 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FH0i2OX3d/PhIyVjPCHFiAOPZbzjFEpyN4Q8wYspeBA=; b=e24nEOuaDN1Y8ThQoK95fLHjBOAABt/3/3vZ3odsOyYkb6HiYKA+uIs1hUCrKbvU7H GlPd9iVWcir4lOyrev1TgtavTgylqbZBG7CvidRjKhYL/wYC5iSm3/NeXJUKIwWrkC6q 9L+gIgsOxqDJf37crDf5XKQv30NE6AUY5RXVs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FH0i2OX3d/PhIyVjPCHFiAOPZbzjFEpyN4Q8wYspeBA=; b=cVXrf+Zm8VePLUJPqstzrMlLi2as7NhrvxsGz3iue3ZGpt8SiGlIVh0kHmwylrRorE iUZwRdqI5YPFkDij22ZI09/lTtsIGltKCs4uoW1V68E8j03kWRKlemRpeID11t7L9HDF WGm4ex83iCLGNKp768YT26qK/UQak3b07bFTZe79jZu1ZPkfwMFeCVTvTilxURj5LDBf pM831bMusfOg3CLNtktafUlvBrSxCy0LChkgBGBEeAO79bxt8vhzL/bsoJdOc76fbNaA p8BOqPDEvhENuM2TNmHpwBHrYqtNIaJAr7hqIoQrt8vQ7xarn/NBe5zkNMh+6sH6stJE M0mA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC022GXyDf7RZnx4sILw439VbvO4yYqiyiUp3+WLfahg8SdP8ARBbb6207zvZwY2/9CU+t0BgRT0eYCoIng== X-Received: by 10.202.245.143 with SMTP id t137mr156325oih.78.1479343017273; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.202.179.194 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Kurt Andersen Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:36:55 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113deec20bbe1f0541746354 Archived-At: Cc: Paul Hoffman , "dbound@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dbound] The Fate of DBOUND X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: DNS tree bounds List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:36:59 -0000 --001a113deec20bbe1f0541746354 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > >> Andrew has suggested that SOPA be published as an experimental RFC, and >> Casey asked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would be a vast >> disservice if they were progressed differently, and if >> draft-levine-dbound-dns wasn't treated the same way. >> >> Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on >> all three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial >> and technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey >> for AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and >> IESG review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is >> willing to do this.) >> > > I would support this if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft) > some indication of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build > the code, who's going to run services that include the new data, who's > going to run services that try to use the new data, how will the > effectiveness and operational cost be determined, who will collect the > results and observations, to where will they be reported, etc. I don't > want Experimental to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize. > (See also RFC2026 and https://www.ietf.org/iesg/ > informational-vs-experimental.html.) > What about publishing an experimental design spec along with the four drafts? That could put a framework around the entire process and perhaps avoid some of the challenges that SPFbis had when trying to move from experimental to standards track. The WG could become the manager of the experiment for a designated duration and responsible for collecting and publishing the results. --Kurt --001a113deec20bbe1f0541746354 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffm= an@vpnc.org> wrote:
Andrew has suggested that SOPA be published as an experiment= al RFC, and Casey asked why shouldn't ODUP be published also. It would = be a vast disservice if they were progressed differently, and if draft-levi= ne-dbound-dns wasn't treated the same way.

Proposal: the WG stays open, there is a near-immediate WG Last Call on all = three protocol documents in order to collect a last round of editorial and = technical (not design) comments, and then all three are moved to Alexey for= AD-sponsored as Experimental. That does include an IETF Last Call and IESG= review, but Alexey can cover that. (This is assuming that Alexey is willin= g to do this.)

I would support t= his if there was with each (including Jiankang's draft) some indication= of how the experiment would be run: Who's going to build the code, who= 's going to run services that include the new data, who's going to = run services that try to use the new data, how will the effectiveness and o= perational cost be determined, who will collect the results and observation= s, to where will they be reported, etc.=C2=A0 I don't want Experimental= to be used as some kind of open-ended consolation prize.=C2=A0 (See also R= FC2026 and https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-= experimental.html.)

<= /div>
What about publishing an experimental design spec along with the = four drafts? That could put a framework around the entire process and perha= ps avoid some of the challenges that SPFbis had when trying to move from ex= perimental to standards track. The WG could become the manager of the exper= iment for a designated duration and responsible for collecting and publishi= ng the results.

--Kurt=C2=A0

=
--001a113deec20bbe1f0541746354--