------ Original Message ------
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzme...@nic.fr>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adr...@qbik.com>
Cc: "Philip Homburg" <pch-dn...@u-1.phicoh.com>; "dnsop@ietf.org"
<dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: 8/04/2016 12:35:32 a.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Alternative Special-Use TLD problem statement draft
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 08:48:19PM +0000,
Adrien de Croy <adr...@qbik.com> wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
so therefore the DNS namespace has to be perverted.
From the discussion at the IETF plenary yesterday evening, I got the
feeling that IETF 100 in Singapore will be clean of perversions :-)
And when I see arguments like the IETF should assign root names so
that organisations who can't afford lawyers
Such organisations should not be allowed to exist, I agree.
I didn't say or imply that - only that they should not be privileged
compared with everyone else when it comes to getting names reserved in
the domain name space.
I think the security implications of a resolver checking some
internet source for a machine readable list of the latest special
use names have not even been considered,
There is today, unfortunately, no such list. Should it exist in
6761-bis, I'm fairly certain the authors would add in the Security
Considerations section that the list must be authenticated (for
instance HTTPS to IANA with a thorough certificate check). It is not
different than the retrieval of the DNS root key.
And maybe it will be the first protocol ever to not suffer from
unexpected security consequences.
Adrien
_______________________________________________
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
