We aren’t even talking about the same thing. I’m talking about figuring out whether we need to offer guidance for how a host implementation would handle conflicting information and, if so, what guidance to offer. You are talking about one of a number of different ways of configuring DoT.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:04 PM Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/21/2018 05:48 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Doug Barton <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > You, like Ted, are looking at the problem the wrong way 'round. > > > > And this, in a nutshell, is why this discussion has gone on so long. > > If you just caricature what the people you're conversing with say, > > then it's inevitably going to go like this: > > [ Snipped a bunch of arguments I didn't make ] > > > This is why discussions balloon in the IETF. So now I have the choice > > of either being silenced, or continuing to be Person A in this charade. > > I think I've spoken my peace. If you want to proceed with this work, > > please do not be surprised if, when the call for adoption comes, I come > > in and say "I raised substantive objections to this, which were not > > addressed, so please do not take this on as a working group item." > > Ted, > > While I'm not concerned about the issues you raised in your caricature, > I feel that I have tried to engage you in your discussion of different > security models. My understanding is that your models devolve down to > two. Either the user configures a resolver themselves (whether it's > DOH/DOT or not), and user doesn't configure a resolver themselves. I > recognize the distinction you made between your models 1 and 3, and > further recognize that it's extremely important to some people. My point > is that *from the standpoint of a DHCP option for DOH/DOT* it's not > relevant. > > From our discussion, it seems that you're in agreement with me that if > a user isn't configuring a resolver explicitly that they are no worse > off with DOH/DOT than they are without it. Am I right so far? > > Meanwhile, you've also voiced an opinion that the presence of a DHCP > option implies some sort of endorsement by the IETF. I (and others) > replied that we've never heard of this, and disagree strongly with your > position. > > So other than the fact that we disagree on the endorsement issue, what > am I missing here? > > Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
