> From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spa...@nic.cz> > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz expired on 2017-09-10, i.e. did not receive any > update from 2017-03-09. > > Is there a real apetite for work on this document?
The change described in Suzanne Woolf's mail that you quoted is awaiting a "make is so" order from the chairs. I'd like to see the document get an official number, but https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-rpz-00 looks like stable online storage (pending that applicability text). > We are considering RPZ implementation for Knot Resolver next year but if > the document is not going to move forward I would rather close the > ticket and be done with it. I certainly do commit to implementing > ever-changing protocol without readily available description ... RPZ is not currently an ever-changing protocol. Some of the controversy surrounding the document has been caused by Paul's and my insistance on restricting the current document to a description of the almost 8 year old notion of RPZ instead of fixing, improving, or extending it. If you will include hooks for an RPZ implementation in your shipped code as opposed to modified source in a 'contrib' directory that users must compile specially, I'd be happy to try to propose such hooks. In other words, I could try to make a patch for Knot Resolver like the patch that I wrote for Unbound (without cost to NLnet Labs). If you prefer, you could write the code. Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
