Re: [DNSOP] Proposal: Whois over DNS

Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> Wed, 10 July 2019 16:09 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 C3750120289 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:09:12 -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 3oCQruIVnTWf for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 E0524120178 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id k20so5857610ios.10 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:09:11 -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=GgXKVA2dRINkkbxfmWsoBs3z02R7jwRez9N3qx0Boog=; b=oXBYEr9AfZhD7WIm7R2U6/0pp2WcUy6fqzxEjmOjD4Gj1wBjaQoHgVSm3RQ0jew3co 48jnQ6abIJRLv2qhgBmuyZvTvISAg8ePzjki06bANwsyF/mcIlq9d9gWxwKoGouUupPo O0RsjV2t0aoVvoZkYw8YcQMTtC8WBAExATm1I=
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=GgXKVA2dRINkkbxfmWsoBs3z02R7jwRez9N3qx0Boog=; b=rVTeJBFxrdWBOpkFWXN6XznCjn0CidWVlseA3mmnhiWYtcqV0cJJblk/c/YNc7T0iI M+5/YPD7s4u1Whuv9WBXtYZg2rv2x4DHMc4VocNtiCL32yu6CJpNaIpwwJuAVpKjFLrC ryQdZSTT5Wb45zNCNt7Qb9KZOkJFPK9sQm9/uvg5e+gF/hAXqCGOoRTo6FxVA3y1BV+S 9e9AcrS/190C56euMXdx3URIV1n51vd1xC3uhCDIBj7lYDGnL6/qadR8NUOILmBTvYhv H6oxX9D3Omh+U3mRnbbJqNukrlf65vN7KVeG4zKrivc5ZpJe+7U70AQimbbO1Fv55VOR aJZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWxfXdg1Inz2mf4j3N7wYssv7syVBq8Bpl7IA6F7i4Fd7Qk51sy LiKdyUZhsi0nQDwveSNWNBllvw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7VFWJOCnW9CvOkhz/iGFrTCX7r9sRV7jEVFYIg8Q6jr7bRJjX9q4sGC37RH9gOiqY1a8uvQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:cb96:: with SMTP id u22mr16946932jap.118.1562774950814; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:09:10 -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 q13sm2219476ioh.36.2019.07.10.09.09.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jul 2019 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
Message-Id: <C37D6281-2853-4AAA-B603-38FCCB13488C@hopcount.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8A16F10-6105-4BFA-A9E0-7508B9070E1A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 12:09:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <m1hlDLy-0000FCC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, John Bambenek <jcb@bambenekconsulting.com>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
References: <1CA7BF1B-DF50-443B-9219-55259835FE23@bambenekconsulting.com> <233E0AD8-97FE-466C-9B6C-D7A376031C3B@rfc1035.com> <93244821-6C22-457F-BA06-CF43CA9FD12B@bambenekconsulting.com> <EDE98437-E0B8-4B2E-8AA5-2F6B0079CE8B@hopcount.ca> <0ece2408-a1ec-fa5f-f8d1-ff65572de1ed@bambenekconsulting.com> <B520D17D-F258-41C3-97DD-3CE5C3A8E952@hopcount.ca> <6F0B44AA-902D-46E9-9E3B-DB88F5AC1419@isc.org> <A7A3C5BB-2705-47F2-9870-19552756423B@bambenekconsulting.com> <m1hlCac-0000FUC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <3B89FA18-86C4-42DC-A1A0-592729B36B86@bambenekconsulting.com> <m1hlDLy-0000FCC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EtPvCiDg_7aor_iASPCmAuTFTfg>
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:09:13 -0000

On 10 Jul 2019, at 10:13, Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:

> Support for voluntary information has a cost to implement. It is possible
> that registrars don't want to provide that feature because it would not
> make them any money.

It's also possible that registrants don't want registrars to provide that feature. In the past many registrars were able to charge extra for services that would effectively redact personal information from the data accessible via whois, services that had in some cases the additional costs of e-mail and phone redirection included with them. If we infer that the products wouldn't have been made available if nobody bought them, perhaps we can conclude that at least some registrants had a preference for privacy.

A mechanism for voluntary publication of private information by the data subjects that enjoyed standardisation might fail because there is no demand for it. This does not seem like an unlikely outcome to me. To be honest, I find it hard to imagine any registrant paying extra money or spending extra time publishing personal information to the general public voluntarily. It'd be like paying a restaurant extra to have a waiter spit in your food.

Climbing up a few thousand feet (and not replying to you directly, Philip) it's not clear to me that this discussion has revealed any real support for John's proposal. I have no standing to judge consensus here, in case that's not already abundantly obvious, but perhaps it'd be an idea to stop the circular, point-by-point rebuttals and simply concede that there's no appetite to proceed with this work here. Other venues have been suggested.


Joe