this is a +1. see below. > Phillip Hallam-Baker <mailto:ph...@hallambaker.com> > Monday, October 20, 2014 12:04 PM > Just to expand on my comments after some arguments made against. > > The reason I think the WG should adopt the work item is that the > original design of DNS is now defective in the light of contemporary > privacy concerns. There is no reason that the operators of registries > should have sight of any information they do not have a need to know. > > The business relationships built up over the years on the assumption > that this data will be available and for sale to the highest bidder > are of neither consequence nor concern. > > These practices are going to be insisted on regardless of choices made > by this group. If indeed minimization has operational effects it is > much better to document them and allow parties to avoid unintended > consequences. At this point however, there is no evidence of harm. > > Proof of very substantial showing of harm should be necessary to block > consideration of a proposal at the outset. Opponents will after all > have plenty of time to make objections in WG process, that being the > point of WG process. > > It would be a terrible mistake to reject this work without a hearing > because of the mere possibility that a problem could occur. If indeed > the state of the DNS is as fragile as is suggested it will soon > collapse of its own accord. I rather suspect however that the fears > are unfounded.
+1, to all observations above. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
