Won't we need to move to the [email protected] list to start the WG discussion?
I would prefer this just be a simple name change or whatever but I know that the usual thing is to resubscribe. Also anticipate that new folk who aren't interested in charter discussions joining and needing to come up to speed. Reading the draft is a good way to do that. I would like to suggest we add some stuff though: 1) Constraints. Point out that the legacy DNS operates under a baroque set of constraints that are not necessarily documented in section 2.1. In particular the 500 byte limit and various DNS hijacking approaches. 2) Volume constraints Any privacy solution has to be compatible with existing measures that enable server scaling. It has to be possible to operate a resolver or authoritative as a stateless service. 3) Public nature of DNS data. I think this needs elaborating more. There have always been people who assert that the cost of putting my hosts onto the Internet has to be revealing their internal network names. It has never been so and the idea has always been silly but it is frequently asserted even so. A better statement is that the DNS space is logically consistent. That is applications are entitled to expect that if they attempt to resolve the name www.example.com and they get an answer then the answer will be 'logically the same' regardless of their starting point. But even that isn't necessarily the whole story. If we are doing geolocation type tricks then I really don't want to disclose the IP addresses of my hosts to everyone. I might have a system where customers of ISPs that do a decent job of shutting down DoS attacks go to one server and those that don't go elsewhere. I don't want the IP addresses of the Dos proof site to leak. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is [draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy adopted by charter inclusion? > > I don't think it is... > >> if not I want it adopted. > > [no hat] > As do I. > [/not hat] > > I did not want the first official post to be "... and with no > consultation with the WG, we are adopting this". > > So, thanks for asking, I'll start an official CfA... > > W > > >> >> Olafur >> >> On Oct 17, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ... now get back to work. >>> >>> More seriously - we can now adopt documents, etc. >>> We will be meeting in Hawaii, and so far it looks like we will have a >>> useful and interesting agenda - hope to see you all there. >>> >>> >>> W >>> >>> -- >>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >>> idea in the first place. >>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >>> of pants. >>> ---maf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dns-privacy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >> > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
