Subject: [dnsop] draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 17:26:34 +0900

could you tell me what happened to
	draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt?  it has been expired
	for some time now.  i think it is a good document...

itojun
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 22:59:23 -0400

> 	for some time now.  i think it is a good document...

I thought it was useful too.  If I recall the history of this one
correctly, it was a WG document which a number of people liked, but
the WG ratholed discussing how many angels can dance on the word
"unreachable", why firewalls are an offense before God, Man, and Small
Furry Creature From Alpha Centauri, and other nonterminating topics.
The author, not being totally out of his mind, eventually found
something more productive to do with his time.

This document is not on the WG's current charter, because the last
time we asked for a volunteer, the silence was deafening.  Absent
somebody willing to work on it, there is no point in asking our ADs to
let us put it back on the charter.

So: who cares about bringing this one back enough to work on it?

Given what happened the last time that I foolishly asserted from
memory that an author had given up on a DNSOP WG doc, let me phrase
this as a two part question:

a) Is the author interested in bringing back this document?  If so, he
   of course has dibs.

b) Otherwise, is there somebody else who would be interested in
   picking up the pen?
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:17:14 -0400 (EDT)

I think it is a good idea too, but I don't see why it needs an RFC.  It is
purely administrative function in a nameserver to configure it not go give
out certain data to requests from, say, certain IP ranges. The issues of
'how it works' and what features, administrative syntax, etc seem to me to
be as proprietary as the server configuration file.

Indeed, it should be easy for some nameservers (powerDNS comes to mind)  
to do this now.  But it doesn't change the protocol, it just changes the
administration and operation of the server.

		--Dean

.