Rob, On Oct 24, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote: >> whether the IETF “reserving” a TLD is intruding on ICANN’s territory. > After WG LC, I propose that the WG chairs, ADs, IAB, and ICANN liaison > discuss this. My current expectation is that we probably will send ICANN a > liaison to politely let them know what we are doing, so that they have the > opportunity to comment, and we would consider any feedback that they give, > returning the document back to the WG, if needed.
I guess that’s marginally better than what the IETF did with RFC 6762 (i.e., publish the RFC ‘reserving’ a TLD then, a year and a half later, issue the liaison statement to invite discussion). The reluctance to ask the question still seems silly to me, particularly if one wishes to maintain good relations, but this is clearly deep into the political sphere so I won’t bother arguing further. > If [identifying/dealing with leakage] is a general problem for “special use” > TLDs then it would be better to have a separate document that handles those > consistently and generically rather than creating a new rule specifically for > .alt domains. I personally believe it is (and maybe Paul Vixie’s idea of using the prisoner.iana.org <http://prisoner.iana.org/> approach is worth exploring). > This is a reasonable point to consider, even though it also feels like the > world may end up moving to DoH, or DoQ fairly quickly. I’ll admit skepticism. > Personally, I think that it is somewhat hard for users to have that general > expectation if the name resolution is using a combination of name resolution > protocols (including unencrypted DNS). I agree, however I thought the point of the Security Considerations section was to make implementors aware of potential security “gotchas” they or their users may experience as a result of implementation. Pointing out that regardless of what security/privacy assertions a new non-DNS name resolution system may make, unless both parties in communication are participating in that new system, security/privacy may be compromised seems like a useful “gotcha” to note. Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
