[DNSOP] Semantics of draft-brotman-rdbd

[Matthew Pounsett <[e-mail]>]

I think the weak semantic definition of this record makes it either not
useful, or actively dangerous, depending on how the consumer of a record
chooses to interpret it.

As I mentioned at the mic in dnsop, it looks to me like the core motivation
of all of the described use cases are actually based around sending signals
to anti-abuse researchers.  If that is the case, then I think that should
be clear.  If those other use cases have other potential motivations for
deploying the record, then those should be more clearly articulated.

With the weak semantics I have concerns about how absent or unidirectional
mappings might be interpreted by researchers.  Where ignorance of the
existence of the record might injure the operations of a domain, or where
an attacker might gain advantage by associating themselves with a visually
similar domain with which they are not actually associated.

I think this needs to be thought about in a lot more detail, and at least
have the risks fleshed out in the draft.  Depending on the outcome of those
discussions I may prefer to see stronger semantics before supporting the
draft, or to see it abandoned entirely.