On Thursday, 14 March 2019 00:48:53 UTC Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > please do not relegate discussions about the loss of operator control over
> > the RDNS control plane
>
> Although it’s certainly true that DNS is used as a control plane by many
>
Dear all,
+1 on Eliot and thank you Stephane. My deepest appreciation for Tömas
suggestion that really made my evening.
An in-person meeting might be conducive to fleshing out a topic for this
meeting, but at least to me "services centralization" rings like it
might also concern detnet, quic and
On 3/13/19 4:17 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 13/03/2019 21:06, Brian Dickson wrote:
Things like DMCA and its ilk might raise the software to the
level of "illegal" rather than just a contract violation by a user.
Whacking someone in the head with a fish could well be
illegal... but fish are
George Michaelson wrote on 2019-03-13 18:09:
we're in danger of acronym soup here. RDNS can refer to reverse-DNS
(in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) and I think usurping it for Resolverless
DNS is an interesting moment.
it'll always be recursive domain name service (RDNS) to me.
PTR's are mostly
Hi,
On 14/03/2019 00:07, Michael Sinatra wrote:
> On 3/13/19 1:43 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> (dropping dprive list at WG chair request)
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 13/03/2019 20:29, Brian Dickson wrote:
>>> The starting place for the conversation needs to acknowledge this, and
>>> accommodate it.
we're in danger of acronym soup here. RDNS can refer to reverse-DNS
(in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa) and I think usurping it for Resolverless
DNS is an interesting moment.
-George
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:49 AM Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> please do not
On Mar 12, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> please do not relegate discussions about the loss of operator control over
> the
> RDNS control plane
Although it’s certainly true that DNS is used as a control plane by many
operators, there is no standard “RDNS control plane.” If you think
On 3/13/19 1:43 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> (dropping dprive list at WG chair request)
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 13/03/2019 20:29, Brian Dickson wrote:
>> The starting place for the conversation needs to acknowledge this, and
>> accommodate it. It is entirely possible that a DoH client that doesn't
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 16:10, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 19:23:55 UTC Erik Kline wrote:
> > > If there is a malicious user or app on a network that someone is
> trying to
> > > protect, isn't the very existence of these players the actual issue
> that
> > > needs to be
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 19:23:55 UTC Erik Kline wrote:
> > If there is a malicious user or app on a network that someone is trying to
> > protect, isn't the very existence of these players the actual issue that
> > needs to be addressed?
>
> I tend to think this is the real issue. Any app
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 10:20:58 UTC Kenji Baheux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 4:41 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ... can i request that you offer DoT as a
> > solution, not just DoH? they offer the same capabilities of secrecy and
> > authenticity, but DoT can be cheaply disabled by the
On 13/03/2019 21:06, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Things like DMCA and its ilk might raise the software to the
> level of "illegal" rather than just a contract violation by a user.
Whacking someone in the head with a fish could well be
illegal... but fish are not illegal:-) [1]
Similarly typing "dig
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:43 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> (dropping dprive list at WG chair request)
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 13/03/2019 20:29, Brian Dickson wrote:
> > The starting place for the conversation needs to acknowledge this, and
> > accommodate it. It is entirely possible that a DoH client
(dropping dprive list at WG chair request)
Hiya,
On 13/03/2019 20:29, Brian Dickson wrote:
> The starting place for the conversation needs to acknowledge this, and
> accommodate it. It is entirely possible that a DoH client that doesn't do a
> minimum level of getting user acknowledgement
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:18 PM Christian Huitema
wrote:
> But then, if the user has not opted in such system, it would be nice if
> the ISP refrained from interfering with name resolution for that user. How
> do we achieve those two goals in practice?
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
Even that
Kenji Baheux:
>We are considering a first milestone where Chrome would do an automatic
>upgrade to DoH when a user’s existing resolver is capable of it.
Thanks for sharing these insides.
Are you also considering to implement support for this I-D currently in the DoH
WG
(once it is a
>
>
> If there is a malicious user or app on a network that someone is trying to
> protect, isn't the very existence of these players the actual issue that
> needs to be addressed?
>
I tend to think this is the real issue. Any app can craft its own
non-cleartext-DNS name resolution service; DoH
On 3/13/2019 9:56 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> On 3/12/19, 11:40 PM, "Doh on behalf of Christian Huitema"
> wrote:
>
>> Why do you think you can filter content? Who made you king?
> [JL] End users may have opted into / subscribed to such a parental control
> system. An enterprise may say
On 3/12/19, 11:40 PM, "Doh on behalf of Christian Huitema"
wrote:
> Why do you think you can filter content? Who made you king?
[JL] End users may have opted into / subscribed to such a parental control
system. An enterprise may say we'll only connect to the Internet and allow
traffic of X
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage
Guidance for DNSSEC
Authors : Paul Wouters
All,
I am saying this with my dprive WG chair hat on...
As Eliot points out, this conversation has deteriorated beyond
repair. I will now politely ask that these non-technical discussions
cease on the dprive mailing list. I would recommend that everyone
document their concerns with DoH
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 02:59:07 UTC Christian Huitema wrote:
> On 3/12/2019 2:11 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >> I don't see why, based on your argument, your concerns
> >> trump his.
> >>
> >> Can you explain?
> >
> > he's trying to achieve a political aim using technology. that is not the
> >
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 02:33:14 UTC Kenji Baheux wrote:
> *(Sincere apologies about the multi-posting but the discussion seems to be
> happening in different places...)*
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm involved with Chrome's DoH efforts.
>
> ...
>
> PS: I won't be able to join IETF 104 to discuss this
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 00:36:32 UTC Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 12/03/2019 22:51, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > i have no qualms about confidentiality, for traffic allowed by a network
> > operator.
>
> To me, the above reads as self-contradictory. If the traffic is
> confidential
On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 23:12:37 UTC Brian Dickson wrote:
>...
> I think there is a way to use technical design(s) to split hairs, i.e. I
> think the side meeting
> has the possibility of bearing fruit which is palatable enough for all
> parties.
i hope so. i will only be in prague from
25 matches
Mail list logo
