Subject: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:25:03 +0000

All,

This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries

The draft is available here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries/

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 Chairs are aware that this document has generated discussion, if not 
strong opinions in multiple directions.  When stating your view, if you 
have any preference for the direction the document should go - as an 
Informational document that attempts to document existing behavior; or 
for possible Standards track document; and to the scope of the document 
(should it only cover ANY, or should it be more expressive, etc).

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

This call for adoption ends Friday March 27th, 2015.  This CFA encases 
the WG meeting, so vigorous discussion can be made in person.

Thanks,
tim wicinski
DNSOP co-chair

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:03:16 -0700

On Mar 13, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries/
> 
> 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 Chairs are aware that this document has generated discussion, if not strong opinions in multiple directions.  When stating your view, if you have any preference for the direction the document should go - as an Informational document that attempts to document existing behavior; or for possible Standards track document; and to the scope of the document (should it only cover ANY, or should it be more expressive, etc).
> 
> This call for adoption ends Friday March 27th, 2015.  This CFA encases the WG meeting, so vigorous discussion can be made in person.

It is not suitable for adoption by the WG, but it might be later when the motivation section is corrected so that we can evaluate what appropriate actions, if any, are needed to meet those motivations. Two metaqueries (AXFR and IXFR) already have their ACL-related requirements specified, but without a clear motivation, the WG can't determine what to do with ANY, and can't determine whether to declare RRSIG to be a metaquery even though earlier RFCs said it was not.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 21:34:08 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries/

No real comments on adoptions below, just some technical issues.

Is there are definition now what constitutes a meta-query or a meta
type?

Anyway, this draft makes makes it valid to respond to unknown RR types
in queries with NOTIMP instead of NODATA or NXDOMAIN.  Do we want
that?  (Authoritative servers with this behavior have seen some
deployment.)

NOTIMP is a poor choice for an ACL mechanism because most existing
recursive resolvers will not cache it *and* will treat it as a hint to
try another upstream server.

The draft should be clearer about how to “suppress” a query.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:21:27 +0100

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:25:03PM +0000,
 Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote 

> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-ogud-dnsop-acl-metaqueries

Without even reading the draft, I would like to raise a point. dnsop
has adopted many Internet-Drafts
<https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/dnsop/doclist.html> which it has
trouble processing. I suggest to think strongly before adding more
work, whatever the merits of this work are.

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:11:00 -0400 (EDT)

> work, whatever the merits of this work are.

And every single dnsop meeting we ran into severe issues of running
out of time. I do hope that this time, we will ONLY talk about current
documents, and not have any third party presentations.

Paul