On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:38:46 +0100 bert hubert <bert.hub...@powerdns.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:24:33AM +0200, ac wrote: > > when there is an RFC that describers how to lie and then adds > > deception, this is no longer something to negotiate or to discuss > > much. > > By this token any firewall is censorship and lies. Yet we still use > them. > We have also documented ways to distribute blackholing via BGP for the > specific purpose of silencing traffic. > > You don't stop something from happening by saying a standard is > theft. > it is not even close to the same thing.
domain names include trademarks, bank names and so much more than advertising a route or dropping ipv6 you are answering for something that has implied trust and that you do not necessarily own or have any rights to. (implied fiduciary responsibility) > So please realise this is something that people need. Best that they > do it in a standardized fashion. > people also need tools to send out bulk emails. maybe bots. should we start RFC's for that? this is not about what you need. it is about so much more and you may need to look deeper into what this all means and may mean in the future. right now though there is still a truth that nobody has countered, yet: It is never okay to tell lies, to deceive or to steal. > > Is it okay to publish a draft defining a protocol on how to steal a > > resource? or maybe defining a protocol for phishing? > It is very much a protocol against phishing. > your reply does not answer the question? Andre _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
