[dns-operations] independent reviewers needed for DNS RPZ RFC

[Paul Vixie]

Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> hello all. because it was not a product of an IETF WG, the RFC that
>> vernon schryver and i would like to publish has been brought up to the
>> RFC independent submissions editor (ISE). one of the things the ISE
>> needs is independent reviewers.
>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vixie-dnsop-dns-rpz/
>>
>> if you would be willing to read it and send review comments on it to
>> the independent submissions editor, please contact me for info.
>
> It's a little odd seeing this request.

i'm definitely trapped in a world i never made on this topic, so i get it.

>
> First of all, it seems to suggest people at IETF cannot write "indepedent
> reviews". It would appeared better if this message had also been sent to
> dnsop at IETF. Because you need "reviews" and not "independent reviewers".

the ietf working group refused to consider this as a working group 
submission. therefore any review will be independent of that working 
group, even if not nec'ily independent of members of that working group 
who wish to work independently.

finding experts on the RPZ topic who can help determine whether the 
document accurately describes RPZ as it is deployed today was not easy. 
the working group is _not_ an expertise center on this matter. i chose 
the dns-operations@ mailing list in order to reach the right audience.

>
> Second, you didn't really state what you need reviewing. To be more
> transparent, you could have said you are solliciting reviews only on
> the documentation of the specified protocol, and are not looking at
> enhancements or improvements, as the document is only describing an
> existing implementation and has specifically rejected improvements from
> the IETF community.

the document, in all its draft forms and especially the june 2018 form, 
makes that very clear. noone who reviews it will think otherwise.

> And some people at the IETF are now waiting for this
> document to go out as RFC, so it can start work on a followup version
> with the improvements some of us wanted to see, such as compatibility
> with DNSSEC.

like you, i would like to press on with improvements. so, getting an RFC 
that describes the current system is very much desired by me.

>
> I'm happy to write such a review.

i will send your name to the independent submissions editor.

-- 
P Vixie