Date: 29 Jan 2000 03:52:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000129035223.3523.qmail@cr.yp.to> From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: list has new home Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bush's statement of ``appropriate'' material for the namedroppers list is inconsistent with the DNSEXT charter, inconsistent with past DNSEXT discussions, and inconsistent with the interests of the subscribers. In particular, my review of the namedroppers archives reveals * extensive discussion of problems with particular implementations, * many announcements of new BIND releases, and * many examples of interoperability problems involving real sites. In March 1999, for example, Bush wrote a message to namedroppers complaining that he was unable to get LOC records working with BIND. The next month, he wrote a message to namedroppers saying that the existing DNSSEC support in BIND wasn't usable in practice. Some of these factual messages had clear effects on subsequent DNSEXT discussions and on the resulting specifications. All of them are within the scope of DNSEXT. But Bush now claims that they are inappropriate: > discussion of problems with particular > implementations, announcements of releases, sites' misconfigurations, etc. > should be done on mailing lists for the particular implementations. Bush also claims that discussion of his censorship activities ``is a topic for the poisson wg.'' However, a few days ago, Bush allowed Narten to send namedroppers a statement defending those activities. This new ``policy'' is clearly a sham. It is much more restrictive than the actual scope of the namedroppers mailing list. Bush is selectively enforcing this ``policy'' to censor messages that he doesn't like, such as my recent response to Narten's statement, and my message two weeks ago proposing that DNSEXT fix a security flaw in RFC 2181. See http://cr.yp.to/dnscache/namedroppers.html for details of further incidents. ---Dan