On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> You, like Ted, are looking at the problem the wrong way 'round. And this, in a nutshell, is why this discussion has gone on so long. If you just caricature what the people you're conversing with say, then it's inevitably going to go like this: Person A: I think that there are some issues here that we need to consider, and that your use model is the not the only use model we need to think about. Person B: You want the malware operators to take over the Internet Person A: No, I didn't say that. I get that your use model makes sense to you, and we should address your use model. I'm just saying it's not the only use model we should address Person B: Right, you're saying that I shouldn't be able to control what happens on my network. Person A: No, I'm really not saying that. I'm saying we need to consider other use cases as well. Person B: So you're saying that we should also consider the use case where you want to be able to bypass my controls and let the malware operators control my network. Person A: No, I'm NOT saying that. I'm saying that there are legitimate reasons why people might want to bypass DNS resolvers. Person B: So you're helping the malware operators. This is why discussions balloon in the IETF. So now I have the choice of either being silenced, or continuing to be Person A in this charade. I think I've spoken my peace. If you want to proceed with this work, please do not be surprised if, when the call for adoption comes, I come in and say "I raised substantive objections to this, which were not addressed, so please do not take this on as a working group item."
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
