Re: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF)

[Alex Bligh <[e-mail]>]

--On 26 October 2010 01:59:54 +0000 Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> am i on the wrong track according to those (three) who have +1'd this so
> far?

I am not convinced this is going to solve the problem, but I think it's
worth our time reviewing. I will review if that is helpful.

One potential problem is this: we might all want the bitfield to be
"don't be evil", but in practice it's per the draft title "do not futz".
I suspect some futzing may be not only non-evil but necessary (or
lesser of two evils). I /think/ WiFi hotspots no longer futz with
DNS to get users online (they intercept port 80), so that's not
a problem. However, I know that in the UK (and other places) it's
all-but-a-legal-requirement for consumer ISPs to block certain
web content (in the UK child porn), and anyone sane does this partly
at the DNS level. If I'm an SP I probably won't respect an "ignore
legal requirements" bit whereas I might respect a "no advertising"
bit; if I'm a user in $regime I may not want to set a DMNF bit
if that actually means "be targeted by security forces". My worry is
that the bits may end up attempting to encode policy rather than
protocol.

-- 
Alex Bligh