Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

[<[e-mail]>]

Barry, I second the thanks for the charter, which in general looks to me that it could be a good way forward.

I'll pick up on a couple of Ekr's points:

> I think we should stay away from
> anything that is about specifying best current practices because as
> far as I can tell all but the most trivial ones (here is how to safely
> run a TLS server or something) are contested. For instance, even
> retention period has very strong views on both sides.

In my view BCPs are clearly needed, as a means of resolving the contested areas. If I thought rough concensus was impossible I would agree with Eric, but I'm more optimistic.

> This list of practices would be much more accurate if it included the
> resolver-level DNS practices that we are trying to mitigate using DoH,
> including NXDOMAIN synthesis and collection of user browsing history
> data.
> Just having network operators transition to secure transports while
> continuing their current practices does not address the issue.

Please point me to an operator that is arguing for the continuing of NXDOMAIN monetisation. BT is not, nor is Comcast. I don't see why we can't have ABCD work on a declaration that these practises are not permissible except in defined circumstances (e.g. user's express wish, perhaps others). The signalling of policies that you refer to could be part of that statement.

> This seems like it leaves all of the contested issues firmly
> in scope. I can't imagine how we're going to get consensus on
> best current practices, when we can't even agree on the terms
> for resolver selection.

Yes it's hard, and some compromise will be required, but it's worth attempting this in ABCD.

Chris