Re: [hrpc] [DNSOP] Proposal for a side-meeting on services centralization at IETF 104 Prague

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 09:01:42 UTC Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 06:57:03PM +0100,
>  Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]> wrote
> 
>  a message of 18 lines which said:
> > Moreover, centralization is not the only Do*-related problem
> > category that has been raised (my draft alone lists eight others).
> 
> IMHO, this is precisely the biggest problem with these three drafts:
> they accumulate a lot of unrelated rants, and it is important to split
> between issues that are really DoH-specific from more general issues.

when you refer to something as a rant, you diminish and disrespect it.

any concern about the inability of a network operator to maintain possession 
of their RDNS control plane is on-topic for DoH, simply because RFC 8484's 
stated goal is to prevent on-path interference with DNS operations.

please do not relegate discussions about the loss of operator control over the 
RDNS control plane to some mailing list where DoH is not front-and-center. 
their intentions were clear. therefore they should participate in the results.

> 
> Warren Kumari did a good job of sorting that out in
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GaO9UDiVCeAzCKxbPt5V1D9N450>. I
> quote him:
> 
> 1: the protocol,
> 2: the deployment concerns,
> 3: "resolverless DNS",
> 4: the loss of visibility from encrypting the DNS

that is a useless distinction.

> 
> IMHO, this makes several side meetings. People are welcome to organize
> more.

in usenet, we used to say "please take this to some mailing list" by which we 
meant "...that i won't be joining, so that i no longer have to listen to you."

so far, most responses to RDNS control plane ownership issues have received a 
similar response. "please find someone who cares, and talk to them about it."

that's going to make the coming fight harder. we should be looking to make it 
easier.

vixie