> From: Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> > Some of us were not advocating for such text, although some text is surely > appropriate for the Security Considerations or Privacy Considerations > sections.
I don't understand. Do you think more text needed? If so, please provide samples. > Instead, I advocated for simple accountability by ensuring > the censored are able to determine the censor. Please say whether (and perhaps why) the added additional section SOAs, DNSSEC validation failures, and comparing DNS results from multiple recursive servers are insufficient. Please note that if they are insufficient and your simple accountability is required, then the RPZ draft cannot be fixed. This is not protocol development task; it is a purely descriptive job. RPZ fixes, improvements, or replacement must wait for another document. > The IETF has undertaken some responsibility with respect to internet > protocols and their impact on society. If you want the IETF stamp of, > approval, those are the implications. Please specify, preferably with proposed words, the changes to the draft that are necessary for the draft to published or say that you think that the RPZ draft should not be published. Please note again that we are talking about the protocol and mechanisms described in the current draft. Adding EDNS0 bits, new rtypes, and moving RRsets to the authority section might make a better and more acceptable document, but that document would not describe the protocol and mechanisms at issue. If the mechanisms and protocol now described in the draft are unacceptable, then no document that describes them can be acceptable. Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
