I am indeed saying that when the IETF publishes a standards track document with an applicability statement, the IETF is recommending that, where applicable, the specification be used.
The problem with not deciding on the trust model is that it would be impossible to write a clear applicability statement, and hence the protocol would be implicitly applicable in all cases. When you are designing a protocol with very serious and significant trust implications, this is a really bad idea. Think about DHCP providing an SMTP server address. Does that make sense? What is the trust model? The IETF does indeed recommend this for IPv4, but we didn't do it for IPv6 because we'd realized by the time we did RFC 3315 that not every single thing you can in principle configure with DHCP should be configured with DHCP. On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 2:48 PM, <sth...@nethelp.no> wrote: > > The DHCP solution is compatible only with trust relationship two. So if > > the IETF were to recommend this way of configuring DoH and DoT, we would > > essentially be throwing away the privacy benefits of DoH and DoT > (assuming > > that such benefits exist). > > I don't believe people are saying that the IETF should *recommend* > this way of configuring DoH and DoT - they're saying the DHCP option > should be *available*. > > Are you saying that all DHCP options introduced so far have been the > IETF recommended way of configuring things? > > Are you saying that no new DHCP option can be made available unless > the IETF recommends this way of configuring things? > > Both of these sound equally unreasonable/unlikely to me... > > Steinar Haug, AS2116 >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
