Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Tue, 09 July 2019 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C90120165 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hopcount.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jjgG6qKRm4Ou for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x841.google.com (mail-qt1-x841.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::841]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A1812014A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x841.google.com with SMTP id l9so13535518qtu.6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 07:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=ITayMtLfY6rKEl1nHAtzkujhqMslltBAW8yZK1rvVxg=; b=Fe4oGvzEi9jyTyHsm8uhViT7G6HQ3myfDDrcSduF27Q4sA9tPEZmLSau93FPOAvhpx ynDcxpWQ3eQkSwpKUpIkAxyJkY+LT2Fa6qdfw/laBHDWk6ag9vfC336s0IniJ5ZSHJae /bh27gkk9boNNieqvs4g98VFWvdqYUFTotTSU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=ITayMtLfY6rKEl1nHAtzkujhqMslltBAW8yZK1rvVxg=; b=gTsWOpgLGvSajFmT5ihLlAAZHFD+xKSF9y2/tlTMe/xyfY9EmH7pCiH8NTS7sYKUJF KK3azD9iSFiT09PwZw3NyB4r+QIxg8pl5kR6Mu9Kw/55ltqMkb4FIuJGd39o7QRY0j5p oKa+YlfjAdbDvBIbyibnkit15QJ1UdAHT+9KHaSg4VVCLV/6Ux31U2/Nqeu5tCHK/Tz3 kqq3OAEqorTbn8AshCNx1rhIhu0uySuX6nZzRsB4ZBwNDJQNAdvsN0MZtW9nz5fyO7c7 OxtMbnbDrtpE9D2vHwcx89QX89SzazV/joqgUz+NK7K7SG1xx+WRzFGpIEJrnMx3J2kV 4yFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVpqjPQDCPT7yXQOca3YYXteKG3+jO/gehgl2evxk9sJu5cbGLf VV89OrgeeWUocDvMBROLJA4hKtaRApX8uTyy
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJEYKPn2YTBKEU2T6e2W2e4RQ45SWstI3xfHnj11t0jrWeplPnHW/0vzi6PhXsdDY7ZNIXwg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:29a4:: with SMTP id 33mr18434277qts.1.1562682336205; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.50] (24-246-23-138.cable.teksavvy.com. [24.246.23.138]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z12sm8672942qkf.20.2019.07.09.07.25.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2019 07:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-Id: <EDE98437-E0B8-4B2E-8AA5-2F6B0079CE8B@hopcount.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B6697B46-45D4-4CED-A9F7-98D9D894E67A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 10:25:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <93244821-6C22-457F-BA06-CF43CA9FD12B@bambenekconsulting.com>
Cc: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, dnsop@ietf.org
To: John Bambenek <jcb=40bambenekconsulting.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <1CA7BF1B-DF50-443B-9219-55259835FE23@bambenekconsulting.com> <233E0AD8-97FE-466C-9B6C-D7A376031C3B@rfc1035.com> <93244821-6C22-457F-BA06-CF43CA9FD12B@bambenekconsulting.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-UTUwS8n8qFbDcHRa4Y31nKtBLs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 14:25:48 -0000

On 9 Jul 2019, at 10:07, John Bambenek <jcb=40bambenekconsulting.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2019, at 08:32, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
>> 2. These policy problems are out of scope for the IETF. It deals with technical and operational matters around protocol design and deployment. Policy issues are handled in other fora - like ICANN. The IETF should keep well away from the whois policy swamp. The wrangling over whois policy at ICANN has gone on and on for 20+ years. It shows no sign of reaching a consensus. Dragging the IETF in to that screamfest is not going to improve matters.
> 
> This creates a protocol and standard to facilitate voluntary information exchange. No more. If I want to publish these DNS records, it is not ICANN’s business. What we are discussing here is a workable standard should someone wish to. There is a policy backdrop, sure. That’s driving the need to move to a self-disclosure system without middlemen.

The principal reason for standardising this behaviour is presumably to allow and promote interoperability.

Interoperability is required for there to be a useful, common framework for general data exchange: that is, data exchange between parties on a scale or of a kind that precludes simple, bilateral agreement. To me, that's indistinguishable from policy. The idea of both the IETF and ICANN working on different policies for disseminating this kind of information is simply a headache. The conversation is already difficult; I think there is harm in making it more difficult.

I agree with pretty much everything else Jim said, but really this seems like the core issue: this seems like a proposal in the wrong venue.

I also agree that without any widespread incentive to implement, test and maintain, the data is going to be noisy and sparse to the point where it's useless for any practical use anyway.


Joe