Moin!
On 20 Dec 2016, at 17:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 20 Dec 2016, at 7:16, tjw ietf wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
adoption by
DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
The draft itself is really not suitable for adoption by the WG. Just
slapping "Informational" on the document is insufficient for
preventing a lot of wasted effort by the WG in removing the parts of
the document that promote the practices described.
Other then in section 1, I didn't see this. However your response is yet
another
examples why we don't have operator participation in the IETF though we
always
say that we want it.
I've talked to lots of operators of recursive DNS servers and nearly all
of them
have some form of DNS blocking/redirection, yet whenever this comes up
in the
IETF sometimes even from operators (draft-livingood-dns-redirect) we
look the
other way and say this does/should not exist.
Well it does and if the IETF wants to be relevant to those operators it
would be
good if we had documents describing this, so they could be used as
guidelines.
And while I don't like yet another draft that encodes something in DNS
data that
was not meant to be DNS data I have to agree that this draft is relevant
to
this working group and given that we have already multiple
implementations of
it I think that the draft is something the working group should adopt.
So long
-Ralf
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
