Hi Ted,
On 2013-05-29, at 9:54, Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
If I had been able to figure
out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and
not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have,
so I'm out of ideas and it is possible that Joe is too.
Even if you don't have an applicability statement, I don't think it's
inappropriate to talk about the context in which the documented protocol is
intended to be useful, nor to talk about contexts in which it wouldn't be
appropriate. The document currently is far too restrained in this regard,
IMHO. I would add some text to the introduction, like this:
The DNS Resource Records described in this document have significant privacy
implications (see section 8). They were developed with the intention to use
them in [scenario a] or [scenario b] and are likely not to be appropriate in
other scenarios. In particular, they are unlikely to be appropriate for use
in DNS zones hosted on globally-reachable servers that will answer any query
without any access control mechanism.
I don't have an objection to adding text along those lines, and I
understand your reasoning.
Would this address the concerns of others who find the draft alarming?
Joe