IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] On Powerbind

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Thu, 16 April 2020 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
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 C613B3A02BE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 05:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 yklYHGFTy6GS for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 05:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 07F6E3A011D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 05:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D3E6A291; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:59:03 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1587041943; bh=ZVwv3il7nLNXm03dYVwMjbz50W5uTjvlyDjF2n49K8M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=auSn1YkM7S2P1u2+BIA/J+o49ofZrtqjuF7ytAdoHwV5XQPFWisIZCq8IcSKdkBCX RNs61K/HbjxR52D1nxdBTJVeCD7GdeO7gydVXK85WT3H2XCnbk/HmZSJ1POJoGP8Vz 5rQgKJvUa+LLfa2ci3V4l6Zwl0SHv+QEfv3JFZtsCW9GBMPyDeJP4yn5LtUq3ixbzF 8Fk1hYrei/xn9aqBUFoQ8/+ZDs9o1NcD/mMLP8uzfSISb2qj49GdYayr755SP3WLs+ /WyJJ/z+U3ag16So6HBOR+xff9pqpDZDq/ALA32n68BB2N+WOL6sYKgDJuQnUkoJbt KjyHDCc8bbGFA==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 842403C056C; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:59:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:59:03 +0200
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <219399020.17923.1587041943436@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2004141951540.5865@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAHbrMsAbHV8M2GR95nyZ-vCZOGghgxrdVD5NaTC=05q16HBd5Q@mail.gmail.com> <ybllfmxvhlr.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <CAHbrMsAg4KMmMzntS-sWSeYJ3CWywC=Jv5pqBFdmCFmsY3tjUw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2004141951540.5865@bofh.nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev8
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nCglKPbE4fo8d-hpPNdLhUT05F4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] On Powerbind
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:59:17 -0000


> Il 15/04/2020 02:24 Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> ha scritto:
> 
> And we might disagree about the value of enforcment. But as I tried
> to explain during the meeting, the value added is not for our little
> community of engineers that trust each other. It is for people at large
> to not need to trust some cabal and who do not trust ICANN, Verisign
> or the USG. 

Personally, I do not have a strong opinion on this draft - if some people want it, why not. However I am a bit perplexed by this kind of motivation, as it seems misinformed on the current state of governance arrangements around the DNS. For example, the USG has been out of the loop for a while, though the .org quarrel has shown interesting ways in which the General Attorney of California can get back into it as long as ICANN is still incorporated there.

Also, I don't completely get why anyone would want to use a domain name in a TLD whose operator they distrust so much that they think that the operator could attack the zones it delegated. I see better value in the proposal as a way to counter potential attacks to delegated zones that could happen if the operator were ever compromised.

Anyway, I have a preemptive bikeshedding request: if this thing proceeds, please find another name that does not sound like a confusing portmanteau of two of the most widely used resolver implementations :-)

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email