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

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <[e-mail]>]

Alex and all,


-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Bligh <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Oct 26, 2010 1:49 AM
>To: Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>Cc: Alex Bligh <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: [dnsext] Re: need new flag bit in EDNS, "do me no favours" (DMNF) 
>
>
>
>--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
>
  Great thoughts here, many I share.  Often times, perhaps too
often, policy in intemingled with protocol on more than one level,
if you catch my drift.  Blocking content at the DNS level is IMO
a good place to do it IF it is necessary.  Problem is what content
blocking IS necessary.  The IETF should not involve themselves in such
matters when considering encoding protocols.  So where possible as a
matter of policy, content blocking in some instances should be done
where possible at the App level, not at the protocol level even though
both potentials exist and one MAY have advantages over another depending
on the type of content in consideration.
Regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300k members/stakeholders and growing, strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]