On Tue, 11 May 2021, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> To Paul's point, this is the ICANN Base Registry Agreement listing the
> permitted "TLD Zone Contents".
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html#exhibitA.1
> This is only for gTLDs that have
On 26 April 2021 20:45, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
> On 4/19/21 5:13 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> All,
>> As was raised on the thread discussing suggestions for the
>> requirements draft, there is some question on how the WG wants to use
>>
-Original Message-
From: Bill Woodcock
Sent: 31 March 2021 23:23
To: Andrew Campling
Cc: Stephen Farrell ; Rob Sayre ;
dpr...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Root Server Operators Statement on DNS Encryption
On 31 March, 2021, at 23:223, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2
On 31/03/2021 22:49, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 31/03/2021 22:43, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Then those RFCs should be worded carefully so that they don’t suggest
>> that the thing they’re proposing is generally applicable.
>> Particularly to the roots. Which are actual critical
On 16/02/2021 15:58 Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Thanks for noting this. In general, I think that any solution for the
> authentication of name servers should not depend on the WebPKI. The DNS is a
> foundational block of the Internet - if it stops working, all services stop
> working (except
On 10/10/2020 2:28 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
On 10/9/2020 3:32 PM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
Hi Andrew,
At least the cookie aspect of this isn’t just a “best practice” of one
implementer, but something indeed built into the protocol spec
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8484):
Determining
by the policy recently
set out by the IAB in RFC8890.
Andrew
From: Eric Orth
Sent: 08 October 2020 17:00
To: Vinny Parla (vparla)
Cc: Andrew Campling ; Tommy Pauly
; James ;
dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] DNS and QUIC,HTTP/3 Long term vision...
For Chrome, we're currently taking
Important though browsers are for some, DNS is an Internet protocol and needs
to work for a wide range of devices and clients. Mandating its absorption into
a multiplexed stream via HTTP/3 seems unnecessary, irrespective of the
potential performance gains and other possible benefits for web
On 13/05/2020 11:27 Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> Il 12/05/2020 17:18 Stephane Bortzmeyer
>> mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> ha scritto:
>>
>> Yes, and I think I know now the root of the problem. 7626bis tries to
>> go too far and, instead of discussing the DNS protocol and its privacy
>> issues,
At 13 May 2020 18:10, S Moonesamy wrote:
>Hi Ben,
>At 08:12 PM 12-05-2020, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>>That seems quite contentious to me. Decentralization of the DNS is
>>_also_ a privacy threat: running your own recursive leaks your IP to
>>every authoritative (far worse than ECS!), pinning
+1 to Jason's comment - suggesting all DNS modification is bad indicates a
misunderstanding of some real-world use cases.
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Livingood, Jason
Sent: 27 November 2019 16:06
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer ; dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Trying to
11 matches
Mail list logo
