I agree with Steinar's sensibilities on this, FWIW.
Ted, you've restated your thesis several times now, but what I haven't
seen is an answer to my question, so let me pose it a different way.
How is a user that relies on the DHCP server's DOH or DOT resolving name
server instructions worse off than one who relies on the DHCP server's
ordinary resolving name server instruction?
Also, we're not talking about introducing a new service here, we're
talking about a configuration detail for a service that not only already
exists, but is critical to get any real work done once you're on the
network.
Doug
On 08/19/2018 12:28 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
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
<mailto: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
