IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107EC1209F2 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AUvnmdgYICqg for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0961209BE for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id j6so10288981ioa.5 for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vAsFMiuuHwMh3umAUfwYYw5N/36ujIkaA8B+7E6+vIg=; b=Xzskj7DqAD7+VDupj0Pk8ysImkPm/ViSm2pg3KAoL718VSnPr4gNlWiHCMb0EQMbaf Z5MdNvlLXlFhr9ESQQU2BdogAElUw000wh3u4TxMPHxXidNIFsU2aB8kNz5s2W7ULEkA QvDDoWaMjNAzV/Z/hMHHx6Ao7T+CkJD8nXMMeqsx2lG47xSbLredb27oMuGC0O6t2G5+ e57gpJdDuTeT4LgYgWAFfuwfZRCg1n8v8pcmsfLz4yA43RGeSkgAA3RSRFDERjgGDn4b e9JfwW7Sr+fyH29XQeYWM7kKHd4B7OtO6Dhfc8MwT6huWPio/nyEcXW6OgWI94JmqLrU Iihw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vAsFMiuuHwMh3umAUfwYYw5N/36ujIkaA8B+7E6+vIg=; b=RYVbHrz/8c6SCDkbWFDmD5PvqZyzEKDuPxN9nkw+BuxIeGDy8uvdujFrMFG7vZW/nL 8Jv+APGcApC7oQsefAuWjOVFS/Af2GxxEj9Hwn7iYQ8eNd5qdwa2OgB857Yv7E2OYZQ+ BW4vCScFMFKIqz6o6Hj0BTnD0sWYae5MaE0XKOOsxALNF3PPYoveCwd5ldEUDYmncLvl 1D119AqWZ1UHk7//NTgbmmS4b+SkEPuCEvCGbwrTMd3+jcFcFEtT6Stymmg5cZj9gEaz +qWiWxRVCl8ULikfB30TxZvtBzudCouloh9LKh3Biu71tEPLJp18VIgeB2NCNOBKxBtK yHgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX8ZRYLFwYwuwjfx+d3Fa9IV9IpkTZa0ycmlRZpM8pYETupA2/W uKFys0xQnYSQ6+2uDf32EjoHiP+BHWQdPAGia2g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyLdEr4qhL2OCFL9xC5Q2C/jRiIoWgico8OJj2NmMaE+NTm3IIAcrcfLdhu9hHSKm2c+8wtgtBO82MuRs9gOIU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:98:: with SMTP id h24mr10152743iob.49.1563922726451; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6Sx9TEt6CMzRRrdb-HwT_k987oW=4yF1FCbDF17zkaE2Vg@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E23910C@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114E23910C@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:58:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwLZgjkCNDqbR1ZiJvxAiK77_Pv0-tXyTMjZZkHZAsBYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092047b058e6122a4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/NTF1OgSS7cwi5LNIjGY0eCZyutI>
Subject: Re: [Add] meeting hum: should the IETF take up this work?
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:58:56 -0000

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:46 PM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:

> That’s like saying IETF should never have published BCP 38.
>

Is it?


> IETF absolutely is the right place to discuss
>

 Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean a WG or a BCP should result.


> But I don’t think they have the operational experience/knowledge to fully
> understand what might happen in various access networks (especially mobile
> networks) if they started defaulting all their application users to DNS
> servers outside the local (ISP, enterprise, university, etc.) network.
>

I don't think DoH implies this impending doom. Carriers can already control
networking in many ways (e.g. preventing/allowing tethering), so it just
seems like a new negotiation point in a business discussion (that I am in
no way part of).

The bottom line is this: the IETF has been unable to secure DNS in a
successful way for 31 years. I think people are losing patience.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email