----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Arends" <r...@dnss.ec> .. > If you want a real analogy, think alternative roots. From the users > perspective, that is what is happening here: an alternative namespace is > created. Would we have a discussion at all if this perspective was used?
I agree. This document is describing an alternative namespace, and this practice is harmful. It should be made clear that the IETF is firmly opposed to this practice. > I would like to see some guidance from the WG chairs here. What is the > next step. In lieu I propose the following: [1] Gauge consensus about > adopting draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00 as a WG document. [2] if this > draft is not adopted, we should at least get another work item on the > list that documents the necessity to preserve the consistency of the > namespace, adhering to the end to end principle, and educate folk that > the DNS is not the web. > > We might not be able get folks to listen to our stamping little feet, but > that is just far more preferable then to add to the tragedy of the > commons and seeing rcode=3 go extinct. > > Not that we should sit still and let this one go by. I actually think > that the effort of writing a new draft might be lesser than the effort of > trying to change draft-livingood-dns-redirect. I'll wait for redirect-01 > and decide if its worth spending time on draft-arends-dns- > response-modification-considered-harmful-00. +1 I believe that draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00 is fundamentally misconceived and wrong. I oppose it's adoption as a WG document. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Best wishes, George Barwood UK > Kind regards, > > Roy Arends > Nominet UK > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
