Folks,
I'd like to see descriptions of the major isp-initiated intercepts:
o cn's provisioning of a name space that includes two entries not
present in the iana root (ok, this may be less of a dynamic re-write
feature),
o idns's provisioning of name spaces with "idns",
o other actors provisioning of name spaces with "other stuff" (new.net
and its cognates),
o vendor intercepts where (apparently) non-cached data is (apparently)
pre-replaced with monitized data (ask for google, get google, ask for
odd, get ppc, repeat twice to get odd instead of ppc),
o ...
Descriptions. Discussion of incoherence issues. Author-of-dork-asserted
necessity-and-value.
I also want to point out to recursive resolver opeators that there is a
vehicle for policy development at ICANN, the ISP Constituency, which to
date is simply been where major ISPs clutter up the landscape with their
trademark lawyers and ignore all operational issues other than
trademarks in the DNS. I'm always happy to learn what TimeWarner's
trademarks portfolio manager's views are, but those happy moments have a
home in the Intellectually Property Constituency and need not elbow all
the operator issues out to ... the security and stability box of
last-responders.
Eric
Livingood, Jason wrote:
I submitted this draft, which you can find at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00, before the
–00 cutoff on Monday, and it will be discussed in the DNSOP WG meeting
at IETF 75 (it is listed on the agenda).
If anyone is interested and has time before IETF 75, I’m happy to take
feedback before then obviously. Please note that there is a list of
open items at the end, which we plan to address in subsequent versions.
Regards,
Jason
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
