IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

ac <ac@main.me> Mon, 19 December 2016 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ac@main.me>
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 624BE129525 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:25:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=main.me
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 IEDmah5EHWjp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web.hostacc.com (hostacc.com [188.40.114.80]) (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 0DBA5129452 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:25:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=main.me; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Message-ID:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=U8xLJwCOYFC14XlpD0ZzyE95OKRW0LF3m/OourM6peo=; b=OnDxMMikrgoPTcUQqVyYWLpl11 2J19yK/Fy3eYP/GPjUj364GzAMpyMXAFR9aGPYWilxXZTiYEBB//sWvsIBbNUyJIieu5J4ZudqNWM 2zNFH1z5fpJRilJd+1uy9Kw5eY7cqZ4HxI75zqzd/bm+aZzduFVALoj1pdoeN/p8PbOTEstF6sY9V gXSJ6zcKA0ZSRkUwkZFDjZYxBYbuVRcroi3gPE6iGRazuNIARFszZwBvgVYcF90Z8pisPh5RbHHBY hOsUBXudcrWEe66apSEaouvyiwhS4NWg3zZtj8chSWaZ9BwfYnMNncxUncxs4k7uSSz8PPxnStXBy 1KeoNhhg==;
Received: from [165.255.65.6] (port=45970 helo=tree.nuts.me) by web.hostacc.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <ac@main.me>) id 1cIuBu-0000XN-Jo; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:25:07 +0100
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:24:33 +0200
From: ac <ac@main.me>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <20161219.101111.41661466.sthaug@nethelp.no>
References: <20161219.101111.41661466.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Organization: acmain
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - web.hostacc.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - main.me
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: web.hostacc.com: authenticated_id: ac@main.me
X-Authenticated-Sender: web.hostacc.com: ac@main.me
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Message-Id: <20161219092509.0DBA5129452@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/U82eN752hJXxchjaeTIvJush2Kc>
Cc: 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: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:25:10 -0000

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:11:11 +0100 (CET)
sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:

> > The law does not say : send "Pirate Bay" to "example.com" to deceive
> > your users! it may instruct you to send coca-cola.org to
> > coca-cola.com
> 
> The law instructs me to tell customers the lie that various Pirate Bay
> domains are not available. This is a lie because the domains *would
> be* available if the customer had used OpenDNS, Google Public DNS etc.
> 

when the domain registry tells you that example.com is not registered
it is not a lie either.

when a court tells you to resolve a domain in a certain way, this is
not a lie.

when there is an RFC that describers how to lie and then adds
deception, this is no longer something to negotiate or to discuss much.

We are typing an email, on a mailing list. it is what it is. we can
call it a zoomba on a zimba - but it still is what it is.

you still have not talked about lying, deceiving, stealing, etc.

Where is the line?

What is okay for a draft? describing a method of theft? 

( anyway, nowhere in this draft does it say anything about this method being
defined for the purposes of managing court orders or to comply with
law enforcement. )

> Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this matter.
> 

it is not about us agreeing on anything.

It is about us discussing ethics of this draft and the fact that it
defines lying and deception. 

Even if we do not agree about lying, deceiving and fraud, can we maybe
agree about where the ethical line then is? 

Is it okay to publish a draft defining a protocol on how to steal a resource? 
or maybe defining a protocol for phishing? 

where is the line and at what point is it now okay, for yourself?

Andre

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email