Warren, On October 3, 2016 at 12:33:12 PM, Warren Kumari (war...@kumari.net) wrote: ... and just for the record, much much more could have been determined (and users better warned / informed) if the address handed out was a server which displayed an error / links to more information[0], I'm not particularly interested in beating the smudge on the ground that was the honey pot dead horse yet again. Here's an idea: if you can get Google lawyers to accept the full legal liability and privacy implications for running such a honey pot (regardless of how it is implemented and for what protocols), let me know and I'll argue that we should do an RFP to outsource the operation of such a honey pot in the next round. Until then, perhaps we can let the dead horse rest in peace?
or if the name-servers serving the wildcard were required to collect and publish information and statistics. This would have allowed analysis of the effectiveness of the mitigations, etc. This, however, is more interesting and should another round occur, I think it'd make sense to do this in a staged fashion, first to ICANN name servers, then to the registry's name servers. Of course, IIRC, people were arguing that you shouldn't ask questions when you aren't sure what you'll do with the answers... Regards, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
