Subject: [DNSOP] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:32:54 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just a process discuss:

The IPR disclosure at http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2539/ says that due
to the early state of the draft, license terms will be provided later.
Obviously the draft is beyond early stages now. Does it make sense to ask
for an update before progressing this draft?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- section 1, paragraph 7: "Thus, recursive resolver software such as
BIND will not need to add
   much new functionality, but recursive resolver software such as
   Unbound will need to be able to talk to an authoritative server"

It might be useful to mention the properties of BIND and Unbound that
make the difference.

-- 1, paragraph 8: "Because of the significant operational risks
described in this
   document, distributions of recursive DNS servers MUST NOT include
   configuration for the design described here."

This made my day!

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:08:40 -0700

That's a question for the IESG, not the DNSOP WG, correct?

Having said that, it's not clear why the IESG would want to allow 
Verisign, or anyone else who says that they have a patent that they say 
they believe applies, to block progression of a document in the IETF. 
For an informational document such as this, maybe the damage of waiting 
months for a response is not a big deal, but doing so kinda sets a bad 
precedent for more timely standards track documents.

We did that in the sentence preceding the one quoted. That is, the 
property is that BIND also contains an authoritative resolver, but 
Unbound does not.

>  configuration for the design described here."

Glad to hear it! Others seemed to have chuckled over our disclaimer of 
originality in Section 7. If we can elicit as much laughter here as for 
an April 1 RFC, Warren and I have done our jobs.

--Paul Hoffman and Warren Kumari

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:21:39 -0700

> That's a question for the IESG, not the DNSOP WG, correct?

The question for the  w.g. is are they aware of it?  the answer to that
is yes.

WRT to do they care care enough to withhold this document, I think we
have very little evidence for that.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:22:37 -0500

> That's a question for the IESG, not the DNSOP WG, correct?

Yes, for the IESG to discuss.

> Verisign, or anyone else who says that they have a patent that they 
> say they believe applies, to block progression of a document in the 
> IETF. For an informational document such as this, maybe the damage of 
> waiting months for a response is not a big deal, but doing so kinda 
> sets a bad precedent for more timely standards track documents.

I agree we should not hold this up for months. It's a trade off between 
that and letting an IPR holder wait for an RFC number before they 
disclose terms. I don't know where that tradeoff should land--that's why 
I brought it up for discussion.

I do note that the shepherd write up mentioned that the work group 
anticipated license-free or royalty-free terms. The disclosure allows 
for the possibility of royalty-bearing terms.

Ben.

> property is that BIND also contains an authoritative resolver, but 

It was not clear to me if it was a question about whether BIND included 
one, or somehow Unbound prevented the use of one. It's not a big deal 
either way, though.

> originality in Section 7. If we can elicit as much laughter here as 
> for an April 1 RFC, Warren and I have done our jobs.
>