> Il 15/04/2020 02:24 Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> ha scritto:
>
> And we might disagree about the value of enforcment. But as I tried
> to explain during the meeting, the value added is not for our little
> community of engineers that trust each other. It is for people at large
> to not need to trust some cabal and who do not trust ICANN, Verisign
> or the USG.
Personally, I do not have a strong opinion on this draft - if some people want
it, why not. However I am a bit perplexed by this kind of motivation, as it
seems misinformed on the current state of governance arrangements around the
DNS. For example, the USG has been out of the loop for a while, though the .org
quarrel has shown interesting ways in which the General Attorney of California
can get back into it as long as ICANN is still incorporated there.
Also, I don't completely get why anyone would want to use a domain name in a
TLD whose operator they distrust so much that they think that the operator
could attack the zones it delegated. I see better value in the proposal as a
way to counter potential attacks to delegated zones that could happen if the
operator were ever compromised.
Anyway, I have a preemptive bikeshedding request: if this thing proceeds,
please find another name that does not sound like a confusing portmanteau of
two of the most widely used resolver implementations :-)
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
