> On 4. Aug 2022, at 18:01, Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> > wrote: > > > >> On 4. Aug 2022, at 16:17, Vittorio Bertola >> <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> Il 04/08/2022 14:37 CEST Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> ha >>> scritto: >>> >>> You are trying to kill it using, what, political arguments? >> >> Yes. There is nothing technical in this discussion. We are not arguing over >> wire formats or algorithms, we are arguing about names and ways to gain >> control over them, i.e. policy. >> >> Indeed, many outside of the IETF think that the IETF does not even have the >> authority to approve anything like what you are proposing. (Don't mention >> .onion, it was a mistake.) > > But the resolution protocol is technology-neutral. I invite you to re-read > the draft. We are not proposing a namespace. > The possibility for the user to modify local configurations is as benign as a > modification of /etc/hosts or Nsswitch.
(sorry I meant "policy-neutral") > >> >>> Is the DNS namespace and its billion dollar industry so fragile that it >>> cannot handle experimental alternative domain name resolution mechanisms >>> that may be used for resolve "DNS-compatible" names as well? >> >> If your proposal: >> 1. does not allow the creation of new DNS names (TLDs or others) outside of >> the established registration policies; >> 2. does not allow to redefine, redirect or control names that already exist >> in the DNS namespace; >> then it is an "alternative domain name resolution mechanism". >> >> If it allows any of the two functions above, and as I understand it does, >> and does so in a way that can be shared across the global Internet, then it >> is not a resolution mechanism but a namespace expansion and even a new name >> creation policy, and also it does potentially fragment the Internet. > > The draft does not "allow to create/redefine" names. Its a protocol for name > resolution and zone management/publishing. > You can do a 1:1 mapping from the current governance (ICANN) with a GNS > technical infrastructure. > >> >>> And if the IETF is, as you insinuate, some kind of guardian of that >>> industry that relies on the existing infrastructure, what chances would any >>> proposal have going through the respective processes in the future? >> >> Zero. But you seem to think that the IETF is required to approve whatever >> proposal it receives, and it is not, even in the independent submission >> stream. >> >> Still, you seem to miss my general point, which is not about what I may >> think of your objectives (indeed, I hate centralization as well, though this >> is one of the few centralized arrangements for which there are valid >> reasons). >> >> My point is that you cannot plan a revolution and at the same time ask parts >> of the system that you are trying to overturn to rubberstamp it. > > We are not asking to rubberstamp. > We proposed this protocol to the IETF and there was no WG interesting in > technical discussions. Nevertheless be believe (and were told by a lot of > individuals) that the idea and protocol has technical merit. > Which is why we then brought it to ISE. > >> >> If you want the stamps, then you have to turn the revolution into an >> evolution and accept some compromises, such as "!gns" or whatever else. It >> may actually be a more productive strategy in the long term. >> >> If you want a revolution, then you have to be prepared to fight against the >> system. I easily see people in several (non-EU) countries getting the police >> at their door if they start using your system for the purposes that you >> declare right at the top of your draft. That's just how the world works. >> > > If you say that the security issues DNS (still) has are a feature and not a > bug, then I have to respectfully disagree. > > BR > >> -- >> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange >> vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com >> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DNSOP mailing list >> DNSOP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
