Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-04.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Fri, 15 February 2019 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 5D9FA130F8E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 01:46:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 y-xUmSUsssmq for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 01:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 DE4B9130F5F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 01:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FF392804E8; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:46:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (pa-th3.interco.nic.fr [192.134.4.74]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A10128047F; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:46:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366916424E49; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:46:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 28550401CB; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:46:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:46:31 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190215094631.c6tb426jvfnxrb3q@nic.fr>
References: <154689301066.32204.17312124670782800354@ietfa.amsl.com> <20190214195125.nwbazwpk3rgrgxkf@sources.org> <CAHw9_iLeAwU8gskbhyd7OMPYEY68eCDocB9k6ezjUxYj=_WHRg@mail.gmail.com> <20190215090235.afz4x75j5dij2wo7@nic.fr> <6168D7FB-3690-4398-A848-196D1EB414D3@rfc1035.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6168D7FB-3690-4398-A848-196D1EB414D3@rfc1035.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.7
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-8-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/isgYFV2CnRtItCQrfI4XDdu_g1g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:46:35 -0000

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:34:16AM +0000,
 Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote 
 a message of 19 lines which said:

> Why? From the client's perspective, there's no effective difference
> between these.

In the first case, you can talk with someone which you have some
relationship with (the ISP, typically).

> Their request was rejected for some policy reason and it doesn't
> really matter whose policy has been applied.

Well, it certainly matters to me. Think responsability,
accountability, consumer choice...

> Besides in situations where blocking is being done because of
> someone else's say so, it's highly likely that the DNS operator will
> be subject to some sort of injunction which prevents them from
> disclosing that such blocking is taking place.

Not "highly likely". It depends. Some censors are open in their
censorship (otherwise, RFC 7725 would be useless.)

Case study: in France, the list of "terrorist" domain names whose
blocking is mandatory is not public, but the fact that a domain is
blocked because of this list is not: the ISP returns a forged (sorry,
"substituted") specific IP address.