Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

this is a +1. see below.

> Phillip Hallam-Baker <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Monday, October 20, 2014 12:04 PM
> Just to expand on my comments after some arguments made against.
>
> The reason I think the WG should adopt the work item is that the
> original design of DNS is now defective in the light of contemporary
> privacy concerns. There is no reason that the operators of registries
> should have sight of any information they do not have a need to know.
>
> The business relationships built up over the years on the assumption
> that this data will be available and for sale to the highest bidder
> are of neither consequence nor concern.
>
> These practices are going to be insisted on regardless of choices made
> by this group. If indeed minimization has operational effects it is
> much better to document them and allow parties to avoid unintended
> consequences. At this point however, there is no evidence of harm. 
>
> Proof of very substantial showing of harm should be necessary to block
> consideration of a proposal at the outset. Opponents will after all
> have plenty of time to make objections in WG process, that being the
> point of WG process. 
>
> It would be a terrible mistake to reject this work without a hearing
> because of the mere possibility that a problem could occur. If indeed
> the state of the DNS is as fragile as is suggested it will soon
> collapse of its own accord. I rather suspect however that the fears
> are unfounded.

+1, to all observations above.

-- 
Paul Vixie