On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 09:01:42 UTC Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 06:57:03PM +0100, > Vittorio Bertola <[email protected]> wrote > > a message of 18 lines which said: > > Moreover, centralization is not the only Do*-related problem > > category that has been raised (my draft alone lists eight others). > > IMHO, this is precisely the biggest problem with these three drafts: > they accumulate a lot of unrelated rants, and it is important to split > between issues that are really DoH-specific from more general issues.
when you refer to something as a rant, you diminish and disrespect it. any concern about the inability of a network operator to maintain possession of their RDNS control plane is on-topic for DoH, simply because RFC 8484's stated goal is to prevent on-path interference with DNS operations. please do not relegate discussions about the loss of operator control over the RDNS control plane to some mailing list where DoH is not front-and-center. their intentions were clear. therefore they should participate in the results. > > Warren Kumari did a good job of sorting that out in > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GaO9UDiVCeAzCKxbPt5V1D9N450>. I > quote him: > > 1: the protocol, > 2: the deployment concerns, > 3: "resolverless DNS", > 4: the loss of visibility from encrypting the DNS that is a useless distinction. > > IMHO, this makes several side meetings. People are welcome to organize > more. in usenet, we used to say "please take this to some mailing list" by which we meant "...that i won't be joining, so that i no longer have to listen to you." so far, most responses to RDNS control plane ownership issues have received a similar response. "please find someone who cares, and talk to them about it." that's going to make the coming fight harder. we should be looking to make it easier. vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
