On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:59:57 +0000 Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote: > ac <a...@main.me> wrote: > > To legitimize the telling of lies and to define protocols that hides > > the truth from users, (deception) for whatever reason, is wrong. > I agree. > That is why, if you are deploying RPZ, you should do so in an ethical > manner. When someone connects to your network, you have an AUP or > something similar which informs them about how you run your network. > And when a site is blocked, you do your best to inform your users > about why it was blocked, who is responsible for the blocking, how > they can correct erroneous blocks, how they can opt out of blocking, > and so forth. > This is independent of the technology you use to implement the > blocking. > Tony.
I agree with what you said as well, as it is my own network, my infrastructure and, thanks to open source (community) even my own software So I am in 100% agreement with you but, additionally I do object to a request for comment that ignores ethics. For example, should RFC 2588/2979/7288/3511 etc etc describe a method to re-direct a request for x to y and to abstruse the results non transparently to x AND to hide that - I would have the same objections. It is also not just an issue of changing the draft, in this thread I realized that my own previous c'est la vie, is not what I should aspire to and for myself it is morally wrong to just go with the flow. It is really never okay to tell lies. More so, it is never okay to deceive and it is just wrong to 'normalize' this by rfc. Andre _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
