[dns-operations] RRL specified in a stable place?

[Paul Hoffman]

On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz> wrote:

> Why an IETF document?  

Because that's where implementers look for such documents.

Because there are implementers who are active in the IETF who might have valuable opinions on what the doc might say that would make it more valuable.

> In what way does Response Rate Limiting impact interoperability of implementations?

It does not. So what? Did you somehow miss all the operational documents that the IETF helps produce?

> If this is not an independent submission, how does it fit into a working group?  The implementations are pretty much out there, what's to work on?

There are two implementations. Are you saying there should be no more? Or, if there are more, that the implementers should have no clue about what earlier implementers thought about?

> I understand that would be useful is a reference-able document describing the RRL.  That is, something stable and reviewed - and that could be an RFC.   But an RFC does not have to come through the IETF.

Nor did anyone say it had to.

Please consider putting your straw man back on the shelf, and maybe help people who want to work cooperatively do so.

--Paul Hoffman