since no one else has said it this time around the tree tracking the
woozle, ...
how does this avoid creating a nice well-defined target for: IP
shutdowns, censorship, saving children from abuse, terrorism, ...?
randy
---
ra...@psg.com
`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@
> Even if lies are initially limited to malware and C&C, I have no doubt
> that the IP people (IP not being the Internet Protocol) will, as soon
> as they discover DNS4EU, ask for censorship and they are a very
> powerful lobby. If DNS4EU yields to their requirments, then the
> project is doomed.
> What legal basis could be used to force service providers to outsource
> dns resolution? And what exact market distortion / level playing field
> problem would they be solving? This makes no sense. Regulators in the
> european union don't have the extraordinary powers of edict that are
> being d
>> Are we sure that 'it' (definition...) will stop at "malware and
>> pishing"?
>
> We can be reasonably sure it will not. If it is actually used, we can
> expect IP (not Internet Protocol) lawyers asking for a censorship of
> sci-hub.se and politicians asking for censorship of [current political
hi michele,
IANAL and i try not to play one on the net. but ...
> The original language would have put All DNS servers in scope - so if
> you setup a server and shoved cPanel / Plesk / $software on it you'd
> probably end up with your own nameservers And now you'd suddenly be on
> the hook for a
marco (proxied my mirjam:),
> In particular, the committee proposes amending the scope of the
> directive to include:
>
> "authoritative domain name resolution services as a service procurable
> by third-party entities”.
for those of nor steeped in european commission speak, could you please
des
hi joão,
> I agree with you and that’s why i pushed for the dns wg to have a
> blind period of candidate collection during which no one sees who else
> might be volunteering. What you see now is the publication of the
> candidate list after that period elapsed. Turns out no one else
> volunteered
> Supporting Joao is a no-brainer - +1
actually, i would suggest it is not.
[ aside: i like joão, and think he has done a fine job. i might join
the +1s, except for the following ]
i thought we wanted to encourage new/young folk to enter and play. when
we have an 'election' and an incumbent
> I couldn't find out how to use the policy process to get RFC 7344 CDS
> automation in place :-(
sounds more like education and engineering than policy. if not the dns
wg, where may be lost in the s:n, maybe an ncc services request.
randy
>> dig a.b.qnamemin-test.internet.nl TXT
>
> I really appreciate it when people don't just do the study, but let
> others know how to confirm that their configuration looks "right" from
> the outside.
very much agree. but i am confused. you can't put your foot in the
same river twice.
foo.
> I respectfully disagree. A human may idly query the name
> ns-v6.ripe.net out of curiosity. If they happened to use one of these
> shiny new resolvers that do pre-fetching to keep an entry alive, the
> queries for that name will persist for a long time, and perhaps even
> forever. I don't conside
>> I’d appreciate it if more members of the WG spoke up.
>
> I am very pleased with both candidates nominated so far. I would be
> happy to see either Ralf or Shane serve as chair.
i want pigasus!
>> Actually Jim, first comes the poll of the community to see if this
>> fits,
> Well Joao the community already seems to be heading in that direction.
> YMMV.
i am waiting for eugene kashpureff and dianne boling to uncloak in the
meeting
randy
thanks for the best post mortem of that incident we have seen
randy
> today I noticed, that my DNS servers are getting a noticable amount of
> DNS queries for my IPv4 reverse zone, asking for type A or .
how strange, as a reverse zone should pretty much be all PTRs
randy
>> q: where should we place instances?
>> a: near folk who need queries answered. bzzzt! no!
>> a: near the sources of the rubbish so it can be absorbed quickly
>
> Interesting point. This suggests a better (new?) metric is needed. I'm
> not exactly sure what this would be though. :)
get out yo
from a discussion in montréal
q: why do we anycast dns?
a: for attack resistance, latency is a secondary effect
q: what are the majority of queries?
a: trash
q: where should we place instances?
a: near folk who need queries answered. bzzzt! no!
a: near the sources of the rubbish so it can be a
hi mirjam, romeo, et alia,
this looke cool, and lighter weight. but a few questions as usual.
> In the new model, the K-root hosted node will only peer with one
> party, the local host, and the local host is responsible for further
> propagation of the K-root prefix[1]
does this add an as hop,
> I'd rather not see the RIPE NCC further endorse the DLV technology and
> service by continuing to submit key material there.
thank you
> DLV was meant as a temporary deployment aid and might have been a good
> idea at its time.
or not
randy
19 matches
Mail list logo
