Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 18 June 2020 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 E1F083A0C85 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.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 VmEY0FxfPwaw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B87B3A0AE2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49nnGY1y00zMvj; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1592497221; bh=XET3tvmmyx8yJymbKrwvmp4S++o22dLgv2o5Kl1BuYs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SziLB02DdbdltM5ouuWPTgOOfwH23291xQHq7N9ejmUZFK/dOXpWdXxnTD+U9YJAZ LrMVlPr6Ib5Tkel8K0dXuXr4Bp++6n58QuY3PI0ZS0j/tgt9YVJn+rHjZiqmR4F1j6 bb6SP8+iwBpa48OEJEfTApZEzRKlBz6Ufmbec6QE=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QgZMsY02NDMi; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:20:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 18:20:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0FF986020D8B; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E4566A7A; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:20:18 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-4@u-1.phicoh.com>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <m1jlxDA-0000TsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.22.394.2006181218500.20534@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CADyWQ+F=JA6fogcy_JGRJaZv=Hq52ozgmY5gmzfPm=1oHcJXKg@mail.gmail.com> <427141d8-c164-35a7-0e02-0961865d4468@nic.cz> <af8c285c-6e08-7457-8ca8-b088e96dc251@nic.cz> <C93E56C1-4CD9-4143-BA04-76CE059D2556@dnss.ec> <alpine.LRH.2.22.394.2006181149250.20534@bofh.nohats.ca> <m1jlxDA-0000TsC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/262YTo2vRmx8YO4iIr3sEyi3OV8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld
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: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:20:39 -0000

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Philip Homburg wrote:

>> basically all the domains you list here could have used one of
>> their own domains (eg local.telus.com instead of .telus, etc)
>
> I wonder how that would interact with EU privacy regulations. In the common
> case of an ISP providing the customer with a CPE, the ISP is resposible for
> anything that goes wrong.
>
> We can be sure that there will be plenty of queries that leak out. How does
> an ISP deal with a report that the ISP provided device leads to traffic
> going to the manufacturer of said device?
>
> The obvious next problem is where the manufacturer registers a domain name for
> a product line and then forgets to renew the domain when the product line
> is no longer sold.

But that problem is independent of the domain names used. If the CPE
sends queries to the ISP, the deed has already been done, regardless of
what the ISP does with the query (send it to the root, to telus.com or
drops it)

Paul