Hi Ted, On 2013-05-29, at 9:54, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: >> If I had been able to figure >> out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and >> not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have, >> so I'm out of ideas and it is possible that Joe is too. > > Even if you don't have an applicability statement, I don't think it's > inappropriate to talk about the context in which the documented protocol is > intended to be useful, nor to talk about contexts in which it wouldn't be > appropriate. The document currently is far too restrained in this regard, > IMHO. I would add some text to the introduction, like this: > > The DNS Resource Records described in this document have significant privacy > implications (see section 8). They were developed with the intention to use > them in [scenario a] or [scenario b] and are likely not to be appropriate in > other scenarios. In particular, they are unlikely to be appropriate for use > in DNS zones hosted on globally-reachable servers that will answer any query > without any access control mechanism. I don't have an objection to adding text along those lines, and I understand your reasoning. Would this address the concerns of others who find the draft alarming? Joe
