On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 06:30:32 +0000 Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:

If you want to lodge your opposition with IETF about a potential protocol / standard / $thing there are mechanisms to do so. However you would need to get past your emotive arguments and focus on clear objective issues. What are your issues with RPZ? How are those issues presented? What is the concern that you want to voice? (While you’re free to share them on this list this isn’t IETF, so it won’t have any impact on any RFC .. )

As you have said that RPZ is just another tool (to fight abuse) my positions in this wg is to educate, discuss and agitate for change. I cannot do that if I am alone, or if I do not understand why we are where we are. During the thread on the DNS OPS list, I learned that we are where we are because the majority of DNS OPS do not understand that domains are intellectual property and that many of them did not understand abuse. What I have learned up to now, here, is that there is either general apathy or a non understanding of the principles. So, I truly thank you for your constructive comments as I am stuck at the emotive side and I think I suck a bit at proper communication The clear objective issue with RPZ is that it is unethical. Can you maybe help me to formulate this in a non emotive manner? What I have is examples of what RPZ facilitates: In truth Google.com is at a.a.a.a (or ipv6 eq) If user1 asks resolver the IP number for Google.com, the resolver can send false answer of x.x.x.x If user2 asks the same resolver where Google.com is, the resolver can supply false answer of y.y.y.y because user2 is doing the asking If user3 asks the same resolver where Google.com is, the same resolver can answer a.a.a.a In all the above examples where fake (or any) answers were supplied, the resolver also hides the truth of the fake answer, to the user. Andre