IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

ac <ac@main.me> Mon, 19 December 2016 09:50 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 437561295AD for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:50:39 -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 Re7JT8xEVu0r for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:50:38 -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 55A171295A9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 01:50:38 -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=Za+kKmZWpn38qonf3FbFc13CpZGjTipRKYCcU34NTBA=; b=DqcvRrlliODjtEklsvEOMFqKxj dbqBroz4t8bhIgn7XWwPfWH8qrZqRzVGo0jRagC6g7hBjdnkWLk3YC3eFtjF76Vp9ST8/UU9ASA4f Zt4lOBSg2qySAISGGKLNPr8JWyVc4ncNdxU/B+vcMpeWckJ979nOmQmgYoRX9v0liOJ/8h+nLMnSc tWjk6abniCYAK0WC6RtEkUypOi6v4Me+HMMHIHju0mnS1V+ntK4B3PlJ+X1a5ENYSqPNXJvDIFSYy L0SKSsEnZ+tVhLim/vMnX+GHFRil2wioJmBxfaDdQi4wiO1L6lFi4gmWGIuEyvchGZmpFgKfHBDaV Y+YdikqQ==;
Received: from [165.255.65.6] (port=46442 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 1cIuaa-0001Cv-0h; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:50:36 +0100
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:50:02 +0200
From: ac <ac@main.me>
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161219093846.GA25654@server.ds9a.nl>
References: <20161219.101111.41661466.sthaug@nethelp.no> <20161219092509.0DBA5129452@ietfa.amsl.com> <20161219093846.GA25654@server.ds9a.nl>
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: <20161219095038.55A171295A9@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hsEZwCUakUQhgVrL1IN5WQmnjCg>
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 09:50:39 -0000

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:38:46 +0100
bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:24:33AM +0200, ac wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> By this token any firewall is censorship and lies. Yet we still use
> them.
> We have also documented ways to distribute blackholing via BGP for the
> specific purpose of silencing traffic.
> 
> You don't stop something from happening by saying a standard is
> theft. 
> 
it is not even close to the same thing.

domain names include trademarks, bank names and so much more than
advertising a route or dropping ipv6

you are answering for something that has implied trust and that you do
not necessarily own or have any rights to. (implied fiduciary responsibility)

> So please realise this is something that people need. Best that they
> do it in a standardized fashion.
>

people also need tools to send out bulk emails. maybe bots. should we
start RFC's for that?

this is not about what you need.

it is about so much more and you may need to look deeper into what this
all means and may mean in the future.

right now though there is still a truth that nobody has countered, yet:

It is never okay to tell lies, to deceive or to steal.
 
> > Is it okay to publish a draft defining a protocol on how to steal a
> > resource? or maybe defining a protocol for phishing? 
> It is very much a protocol against phishing. 
> 

your reply does not answer the question?

Andre

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email