Re: [dmarc-ietf] Request to accept a new I-D into the WG work items

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On November 7, 2018 7:56:14 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:54 AM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>> My estimation is that this would change very rarely.  If I were
>developing
>> software for this, I'd probably check at build time and use that
>unless
>> there
>> are some reason to update.  Not that people won't try, but I think
>not
>> very
>> real time is sufficient.
>>
>
>Sure, but:
>
>(a) You are probably a more reasonable and thoughtful implementer than
>average; and
>
>(b) It only takes one large operator to, through neglect or a desire to
>ensure up-to-the-minute data, disregard any query rate advice we give
>and
>accidentally DoS IANA off the 'net.
>
>If IANA doesn't have a highly scalable CDN in front of it, which I
>doubt,
>then this is something the IESG would legitimately raise (as they did
>with
>WEIRDS) when this goes up for formal review.
>
>DBOUND tried to do this inside the DNS, which solves the CDN problem,
>but
>it couldn't reach consensus on the preferred approach, and shut down
>not
>long ago without producing anything.

Unfortunately, I didn't come up with an idea for how to do this in DNS.  This seems like a legitimate issue for the WG to work through.

There are lots of ways to do denial of service attack protection without a CDN.  I would hope it's not so trivial to bounce IANA off the net.  

Scott K