IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

ac <ac@main.me> Mon, 19 December 2016 11:23 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 83440129722 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 03:23:26 -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 cJXPiszkXrzZ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 03:23:25 -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 3015212970A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 03:23:25 -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=2QmQoB/u1hWHWQeYsuvGozOvQMDsgjeDxRn++vdnWSQ=; b=cqhYTvtIex7VLZ254P0uQl+5Sm rx9W9m1TOpm6JPhcCzoaDlWTxBMmsqK9WtpTXW3b2gwLXKCwOE2UU+kRzrvWrP10qjNrwXgnwrGFU PIdANSwBOYaz6m84h6o9L1rGdrZBI4/YisM7ud/D+hcjzOx2yaxzhv+vIy012uaJKs/RSWFzIEFLQ naOdWHY/90LtGPVrTUfUga4hUDZ86gO/KypMOMtWAuWIJ4JUfFT4wCFyh5qqHFg9x07F0WXGQmwUH CYvENQQapLkogyckYv4/Da9z2HxEfkn2MBg/SRqe2rnuKysGRawoPGvxHSxG+ESnBPv3TUby9SyYW b0pfC9pQ==;
Received: from [165.255.65.6] (port=47920 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 1cIw2N-0003XY-1h; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:23:23 +0100
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:22:47 +0200
From: ac <ac@main.me>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1612191055110.14104@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20161218224231.GB16301@odin.ulthar.us> <em8c69a376-3e56-437d-8fe4-d70af6aa0e63@bodybag> <20161219050559.6F643129497@ietfa.amsl.com> <5CAA0C17-B3F6-4518-90EC-9B0C59D75194@fl1ger.de> <20161219072930.8E646129530@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1612191055110.14104@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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: <20161219112325.3015212970A@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rTlGXmQt4Od3h0_VJ4a9-a7jNYg>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <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 11:23:26 -0000

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:59:57 +0000
Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> ac <ac@main.me> wrote:
> > To legitimize the telling of lies and to define protocols that hides
> > the truth from users, (deception) for whatever reason, is wrong.
> I agree.
> That is why, if you are deploying RPZ, you should do so in an ethical
> manner. When someone connects to your network, you have an AUP or
> something similar which informs them about how you run your network.
> And when a site is blocked, you do your best to inform your users
> about why it was blocked, who is responsible for the blocking, how
> they can correct erroneous blocks, how they can opt out of blocking,
> and so forth. 
> This is independent of the technology you use to implement the
> blocking.
> Tony.

I agree with what you said as well, as it is my own network, my
infrastructure and, thanks to open source (community) even my own 
software

So I am in 100% agreement with you

but, additionally

I do object to a request for comment that ignores ethics.

For example, should RFC 2588/2979/7288/3511 etc etc describe a method
to re-direct a request for x to y and to abstruse the results non
transparently to x AND to hide that - I would have the same objections.

It is also not just an issue of changing the draft, in this thread I realized that 
my own previous c'est la vie, is not what I should aspire to and for
myself it is morally wrong to just go with the flow.

It is really never okay to tell lies. More so, it is never okay to
deceive and it is just wrong to 'normalize' this by rfc.

Andre

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email