On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Paul Vixie wrote:
However, such a change of submission should not lead to any more substantive delays in publication. If this is not possible, then I will retract my objection to publishing this as a WG document, and would only request the authors update the initial sentence of the abstract to say:This document describes an existing and widely deployed practise for expressing and distributing DNS reply filters. This is implemented using a DNS response policy inside a specially constructed DNS zone, and for processing the contents of such response policy zones (RPZ) inside recursive name servers.well, so, it's not a reply filter, but your language as to "existing and widely deployed" can be added.
The two changes are related for me. One is the warning about it being a DNS answer modifier (whether you call it a filter, firewall, or censor tool) and the other is that this modification practise is widespread and better done with interoperability in mind. Saying "expressing DNS response policy" might be pedantically more correct, but is really obfuscating what this tool does, and I think the abstract should really convey what this is all about. Anyway, I said "request the authors". It is not a demand. I'm sure you fully understand my opinion and concern by now. I'll leave it to you to accomodate that with any or no textual modification. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
