Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 31 December 2016 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFCA1294A7 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:00:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8h3yopmsBmQ for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E44F12941A for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u25so313619615qki.2 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:00:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=OaNfYzT1wnquUvvKUzoYmecyQQ4T/HoXVHedLduapcI=; b=hFn5S6Wyy0z4Ru49YcMA+sd5zam9OlRP/7wZILTsbnVwH9B0VULPuDssRCfsOAYiGt slBiSiGApUGCr/ZnAnyCbSeDFEyBVnUn0xLuOkzCGEBWtlm2o5+lAvGQQGakzND3wHxt vvT0Upit2vgu/18QmWeaVhHKy+RPqkaHoeaQ8KStldiC0GDu+iEyDkTk0l/OpNPeyOQq zMWeDRP5mts8Qm1ciLyQEJoe7Se1z5yOHmOF1krk9Z+8lZOVcxyRMghDYtQjMdcLUJZ/ OA4y1a6704rMjW9ozIDMJvKNpTbYlbdWL49wziyY11z/A1YsxFtX16n6FoW40fUZ6TZL QyAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=OaNfYzT1wnquUvvKUzoYmecyQQ4T/HoXVHedLduapcI=; b=HUAM/9uJL9JyB4aX+zRDr4h2u0X/x+3VB9zT5R5Aim20b+HUXZDxi/hmMYQl00y4U5 0+gr4CGb4voRoXA3nYsA1c+Z2vI/EbU/FMuyv3ggiQLwyk6IdGmwJXCo60em1RDVQzSf f5DnSYxPgZ2lqXlEC7IIZc7ZbJQVUKH5mbLXJkQSKEl4w+gzIRx0fy+VQzlBWuwvS1Yq nBhL2+kjn4YsuT7v+7p2iiqv5Y9sthpgsqV3nA7yRHZ8DLsLKIAd8Jiekf3ZTg7vXviw wiIyNYvHfNzIZboN953MwZ9Bxnmi8rVR2vVWkiX/2JZrCRl537l3GiQ8mACweUreyskW mqyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXINOKdIDoSJKHwQhcGPJOVdtsmymZryU3dBTsVTz5TS+2gZdFKCoMQgYl6IYRUW+g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id r71mr49096563qkh.306.1483221642444; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p47sm23837568qtc.25.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:00:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_79BE3752-1D92-40B5-BB00-075BBFF1A0BE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:00:39 -0500
References: <> <20161229054559.31443.qmail@ary.lan> <>
To: dnsop <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 22:00:45 -0000

On Dec 31, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <> wrote:
> why is there a need to make it easier for outside forces
> to pressure providers to use such mechanisms to exert control over
> their users rather than protect them from harm?

There is no _way_ to make it easier for said outside forces to pressure providers.   They have the force of law on their side.   What we do makes no difference in that arena.   The arena in which it _does_ make a difference is protecting people from losing their homes because they got suckered by some malware that got into their personal records on their computer.

IOW, the argument you are presenting has nothing to do with the choice that faces us.   If you want to make the case for rpz being a bad thing, the argument you should be making would have to show why protecting people in this way is the wrong solution to the problem, and why some other solution to the problem (e.g., a blacklist in the browser) is less bad.

Can’t we have that conversation, instead of these repeated assertions about things over which we have no control?