Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

> >How does this relate to
> >         RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root.
> 
> Erik, how exactly does a non standard DNS port violate the unique root ?

I asked that question with the hope the proponents would think about
it carefully. Seems like that failed :-)

It seems to me that the DNS as we know it operates on a well-know
port. Being able to run something using the DNS protocol but
a different port number sounds like being able to run
a different naming system with potentially a different root.

> Security is not Cablelab's primary argument here (recall it was #3 in the 
> previous email).  The primary argument is to provide flexibility to our 
> customers.

But ignoring the testing argument (which is an argument
for an experimental RFC and not a standard IMHO)
the remaining arguments are:
>2. Some MSO's may decide to deploy DNS on non standard ports.  Its a
>flexibility issue.
>3. Not using a standard port makes it slightly less prone to attack by
>script kiddies.

#2 doesn't state why folks see this need. One possibility is
definitely walled gardens and in general using a different DNS
tree than the rest of us. I've yet to see any other concrete reason
for this (and I don't buy flexibility for its own sake).

And #3 is just security through obscurity which we IMHO have no
business promoting in our standards.

  Erik

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg