On 13.3.2017 16:12, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 3/13/2017 8:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> On 13 Mar 2017, at 7:44, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> On 3/13/2017 4:11 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: >>>> The draft breaks DNSSEC. >>> ... >>>> I have proposed a method that would not change the RPZ response for a >>>> non-DNSSEC client, but would add data for DNSSEC capable clients to be >>> >>> That sounds like an excellent bit of technical enhancement to >>> consider... /after/ documenting /existing/ practice. >> >> Why "after" and not "during"?That is, if the WG document tells how this >> one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document >> other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That >> would certainly give the reader more context. > > > They are fundamentally different exercises. > > A baseline document for /existing/ practice is extremely common for the > IETF to start with. It provides clarity to the community and a stable > platform for enhancement work. > > Groups that try to simultaneously document existing practice /and/ > define modifications tend to produce a confused specification.
I agree. Knot resolver team has some very limited implementation of RPZ and it would be very beneficial to have a document describing current status so we could be interoperable. What is missing in the current draft is a versioning scheme. There should be something which can be used to distinguish current version from any future versions. For this reason I propose to document current practice with exception of adding *a minimal versioning scheme* to the draft. When version 0 is published we can certainly work on improvements but anything else is IMHO putting the cart before the horse. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
