On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 04:38:20PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/12/2017 4:23 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > I do not want to adopt it unmodified
> > as informational RFC for running existing code.
>
> You do not want the IETF to document existing practice?
In general, yes. However, in this case more is perhaps at stake
than documenting existing practice. Whether we like it or not,
publication of said existing practice by the IETF will be seen as
an endorsement of that practice. And, while the present RPZ provides
useful operational controls, there is real potential for mandated
abuse or collateral damage.
> Really?
Therefore, yes, really, it may be best to not document current
practice, and instead create a document that reduces the potential
for abuse and/or collateral damage.
If we're sending rockets up, we should care where they come down.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
