These stamps do contain interesting ideas, I believe. On 1/9/20 5:13 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > 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 > [...]
Depends what you'd want from the stamps. If the main point is to configure by an URI that's easy to copy&paste, I don't think you really need these details. I imagine you'd copy it from an https site of the operator or got through another trusted (chain of) means. And I'd certainly not expect binding such format to some legal mechanisms, etc... perhaps you could just add policy and some "small print" legalese to that site as well. Someone would need to "author" it here. I don't expect DNSCrypt people to push it forward within IETF. I'm not sure what would happen if WG decides to change the format in an incompatible way, but perhaps that could be avoided. BTW, do we want to keep this (whole) thread in *both* mailing-lists at once? --Vladimir _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
