Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a side-meeting on services centralization at IETF 104 Prague

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 14 March 2019 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE82F131150 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bILlAPYcncvD for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4843131110 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f11so4214999qti.7 for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=RQjW7PjnDDy0JmlSs51eBzDiMm6vhoFPMJvUWTCWswQ=; b=py/Pztu6iEanudNUZPO7zssHRilVXRDldD53XNzeDkZnNlDv9rNhRuG7mXDj0cDmP8 vEjh5cI9fJQqJHeQKI5GUO1RUxtktlPKMksadMB1+tI616wEBlF2szNqnjQTAYcuLAqY 68SANAi8gDcpFR8AK5A4Oe/EGCcOr1akAFGVzyl9IKJdbiSOX7NuJ6s0g8eRSbd8ViX/ 7pzTwa7PdISAZBKcuYyZsV3HeJtD1MRiNLTzCgFsoRapY6z8i1lNcxmecsWuKQth009f SWkdspjs991I6rqNKb6SGiVpUueCOBbsCtRdMIcSMREpN3zvf95t3UVZ4UTHesa1fLDH oL+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=RQjW7PjnDDy0JmlSs51eBzDiMm6vhoFPMJvUWTCWswQ=; b=ApAmlfHm+oI3xXr/IjN3/M8eaAgEl5E/fZkXq0APgzYtVieNrae1Vx0yrX/2LSaFBX Aaq2suMoaWiAVNKWHKPCVydXLC+OqB/DUG8E40DIavj9Zb//9CH7Y0TXYCACFim9yieh MkMoPu2Pk0JyTbQNmFWQz/Rza9RhhMvK4hWZskscEissx4PWi8vsupiFqQYiv9Rotm+s ljrXFZ2BGivin+kKOgWe4rcHbcDqrlT30pQKPPjIo74tjHydzW/SYb4DU5UAtlq90CFi A2NHtgXTdNLbiqp7zJIhdtQEYhKn5w5jVkxx3o6nmgTwnSLu81sH/xAHNYou5xmjBgb0 WkxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUN7aal4HN+dQd2GSiSthGqp7UDI/PLCYxftRsSliB4WCr22GYD D7OK79S2H8umKYsck7TPLHIyVJT7uuynIQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzMVXZTlidocs+BUKb37qOP3kMD3aQLYzWYs2GnVawuWKXibcfrjKtp57fR3OR0leJzaZ5+1g==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d20d:: with SMTP id m13mr3188743qvh.165.1552524536018; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n1sm7927068qkd.28.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 17:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_291E4122-A17D-40E5-99D4-F436A0582FAA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.2\))
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:48:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2044747.4WdMZHU4Qz@linux-9daj>
Cc:, Vittorio Bertola <>,,,
To: Paul Vixie <>
References: <> <> <> <2044747.4WdMZHU4Qz@linux-9daj>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.2)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a side-meeting on services centralization at IETF 104 Prague
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:49:04 -0000

On Mar 12, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Paul Vixie <> wrote:
> please do not relegate discussions about the loss of operator control over the 
> RDNS control plane

Although it’s certainly true that DNS is used as a control plane by many operators, there is no standard “RDNS control plane.”   If you think there should be, that’s something that the IETF could conceivably work on, but it’s not something that the DoH working group is obligated to treat as a standard use of DNS.   And I don’t think it’s a topic on which there is consensus in the IETF.

The problem with the discussion we’ve been having about DoH and how it affects your “RDNS control plane” is that we’re talking past each other, not that the discussion should be had elsewhere.   It’s fine for there to be a discussion, but if there is going to be a discussion, participants need to engage constructively, and not just fling slogans at each other.