Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error-26: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-structured-dns-error/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review. Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback and part of my COMMENT feedback. === Prior COMMENT feedback ** Section 3 -- Bullet #1: Frustrated, the end user may switch to an alternate network that offers no DNS filtering against malware and phishing, potentially compromising both security and privacy. -- Bullet #2: Frustrated, the end user may resort to using insecure methods to reach the domain, potentially compromising both security and privacy. Can this threat be more precisely articulated? What is being described in bullet #1 and #2 seems like how web browsing looks in the real world. For example, I am a student on a mobile device using the school’s Wi-Fi network but it blocks the social media site I want to use, so I switch to the cellular network. I am employee on a restricted enterprise Wi-Fi network with a BYOD situation, but it blocks the shopping site where I want to make a purchase while having lunch in the cafeteria, so I switch to the cellular network. I try to access a web-site but it blocks me due to geofencing policies so I use a VPN to exit in a different geography. This speaks nothing of users in places with censoring regimes implemented by carriers which regularly resort to alternative means of access. ** Section 4 j: (justification) 'UTF-8'-encoded [RFC5198] human-readable explanation for the DNS filtering decision. … Returning non-UTF-8 data, syntactically invalid content, or deliberately meaningless values (including empty strings) indicates that a DNS server is misbehaving. If this is human readable explanation not meant for automated processing, what is a “deliberately meaningless value”? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
