Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns-01.txt

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:09 AM Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Ben Schwartz wrote on 2021-03-15 08:09:
> > Many have raised the difficulty of establishing an identity for the
> > network and confirming that claims received by the client were produced
> > by the network operator.
>
> who? (the many) what? (did they say) and why not? (wouldn't we just use
> a signal pattern that only the network operator, and not every node on
> that network, could participate in?)
>
> i don't intend to be abrupt. but "many people are saying" is not an
> argument, and i don't think a non-argument should move the needle here.
>

Evidently I should have been clearer: I meant "many in this thread".  I
count at least three messages to that effect from different authors in this
thread.


> i hope you can clear something up for me, though. previously your
> principle concern was that RDNS policy was a small part of a larger
> puzzle, and you were reluctant to treat it independently. i answered
> that i wanted the same pony you did, but in the absence of anyone who
> wanted to work on the whole puzzle, we had to consider starting small
> with the small part of the puzzle we're facing.
>

I suppose this is in reference to
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/LAChEeAQa9_0zDEbPWhshYgEuGo/
I think I meant something quite similar to what I said earlier in this
thread: policy is a conversation between people, not machines, so the
logical place for it is in something more or less like a captive portal
ToS, where the user may contemplate all of the network's policies together.

In any event, the place for it is not in this working group.

you'd also said that there wasn't a way that the network operator could
> speak authoritatively and that a client might receive policy from some
> other node and would not know whom to trust


I just took a few minutes to re-read every message I've sent to this list
in the last two years.  I did not find anything matching this description.
Nonetheless, it's possible that I may have said something to this effect.

My current feeling, as I said earlier in this thread, is that this is a
significant challenge, but I do not mean to claim that it is impossible.