Along with these good suggestions, the next draft should include a
brief description of why the desired behavior (as seen by the user) is
better performed through DNS tricks than through HTTP tricks.
John
On 2009Jul17, at 12:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 8:16 AM -0400 7/16/09, Livingood, Jason wrote:
I'll speak for my parents here: a DNS resolver that reduces the
chance that they'll get a drive-by malware
infection is something they would happily use. Having said that, a
DNS resolver that gives them a page of
search results instead of the browser's error page when they
mistype a URL is something the *do not* want
because it increases their confusion.
IMHO malicious bots are an extremely concerning problem, and the
problem of bot infections is much more widespread than many people
realize. I'm in the early stages of contributing to a bot-related
draft at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation-00
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation-00
in case anyone is interested in providing private feedback (haven't
really found a WG appropriate for the work).
I hope that redirection is not an indicator that the -01 draft will
continue to talk about the two scenarios as if they are somewhat
equivalent.
At 4:14 PM +0000 7/16/09, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
I hope redirect-01 is more strictly descriptive and can drop
defensive
terms for DNS redirect, like "enhancement" of the "user experience",
since it's by no means agreed that crippling DNSSEC (for example)
enhances the value of the Internet for anyone.
+1. You can talk about why you are doing what you are doing without
making it seem that the positive values are going to be be worth the
negative side-effects.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
