On Jan 9, 2020, at 6:35 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Could be useful specially for secure and public resolvers, may be > worth of some IETF work?
In order for this to actually be useful, two things would be required. 1. The assertions about resolver behavior (e.g., logging, etc) would have to be signed 2. The signature would have to be validatable back to a specific entity that is legally competent to make promises 3. There would have to be some legal mechanism, whether actual law or precedent, saying that these assertions, when made by competent legal entities, constitute a contract. 4. It would have to be possible to automatically determine based on some trust model that a particular identity corresponded to an entity that qualified under (2) 5. Someone(s) would have to operate (4) So basically this document does just the easy part, and none of the hard part. And the bulk of the hard part is probably out of scope for the IETF, although a model like ACME could work. I’m not arguing for or against doing this, but let’s be clear about how much work it is and what kind of work it is! :)
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
