IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-vixie-dns-rpz-04.txt

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Wed, 21 December 2016 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 CB1CD129B6A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 WbnaoHwDGY1H for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com (mail-pg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]) (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 98B34129699 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id g1so39618160pgn.0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=SZ1TY5rznk9mSor1GbcxWQENJutIP3MYmwKoI/E6h8Y=; b=zoelFXvuzAKuHNcTAG3g8TtxJXDKQxifcHnBH1lmDdVnE7QpCtdtxwWcVZxNve9oUb mWEfwWBn5OZ4thfiH9NBd7P4a7F4wF2QZ9lqH+bJoEdyMApkkcpztY+FlL2HD5tZnnwr 5P+jtDpCQ73J/WbFLoH692cGReFATs3b6VscdA0kHEQyTs/Dy4teK5s3/SQ3aHuMCWz4 tEiMYPgiWR9vD4w2jsb/EwTONJnsoqPg4jIw0encwl5cpfwjU8yfqXfepfszmS8i9K2B 8xmtFZ73nX9ItRY1MWAB91QTQp6sn1ydg8KYAuPIH/OjGplQvjS1nViX27tnBsHj5OIU OlKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=SZ1TY5rznk9mSor1GbcxWQENJutIP3MYmwKoI/E6h8Y=; b=b3Bckb0duK3bSjPXh6pi1NAIQErpm6dqgo5TC7Vj6sZ3Kj+QRaeK3ZXhKbcrqdQgNh rtA7W+tCmSMB1TNnejfMbVbvwHueDlfSMOsV+S0rBw712/IUK3LnyT+GX7FIQhjaMEd9 OpCpPRDd8r1hWJa79W+cy/LkRN8ECK3qKhlF/JzbHxZSzkR/lEnMF3h9UrkPjnUgwOZa aWAV2e5R/9QK2jib5bObCKF6knN7mJRACoT8kwm424u9LxLabwE9eYuab9YPJjwhGkFU G5hIyw2v62Rwbq4la0jittu1/Z5kDbgikmha/njr6MaDv7NA+9O3jROq6xxZ3pN0doXp MRSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJDNr2bTyHVj0JBNb2ws7yX+gD/t+Mr9I3DfybzUAYs9gTt/nkC1o5OWG8ym5aTFA==
X-Received: by 10.98.43.85 with SMTP id r82mr1830136pfr.121.1482283473078; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4301:9590:84c7:b065:7d7a:e42? ([2601:647:4301:9590:84c7:b065:7d7a:e42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y2sm41751398pff.82.2016.12.20.17.24.31 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_34AB9270-6EBF-4E87-9F4C-188E83A4F8FC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161221000237.24158.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 17:24:30 -0800
Message-Id: <EBCD2226-35F7-4B18-B849-D2311F1160F8@virtualized.org>
References: <20161221000237.24158.qmail@ary.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SB7YJXfh19oGnB6UoqT6UzGQlL0>
Cc: each@isc.org, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-vixie-dns-rpz-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 21 Dec 2016 01:24:35 -0000

+1

Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)

> On Dec 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Not wanting to be recruited into a botnet" is another such consideration.
>> Paul and Vernon invented a useful tool to help address it, and I'm
>> in favor of documenting it.
> 
> I would really prefer that the IETF not embarrass itself with a rerun
> of the NAT fiasco, in which TCP/IP purists yelled and screamed and
> insisted that NAT was evil, while in the real world it solved (still
> solves) real problems, and everyone implemented it in various not very
> transparent or compatible ways.
> 
> RPZ is ugly but it solves serious real world problems, and it's going
> to be used all over the world regardless of what we do.  Just this
> week I heard from a friend at a largish company that one of their
> suppliers got hacked with the trendy new malware that hides in web
> page images.  Without RPZ, approximately all of their Windows users
> would have been infected, with RPZ none of them were.
> 
> If we want to offer advice and perhaps technical twiddles on how to
> deploy RPZ to minimize surprises and make it easy to find and fix
> mistakes, that would be swell.  Insisting that it's stupid and wrong
> confirms the not ill-founded impression that dnsop is out of touch
> with the real world.
> 
> So, yes, we should adopt this draft.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email