On 15/09/17 23:04, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:44, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> On 15/09/17 20:25, Ted Hardie wrote: >>> >>> This set of questions is pretty different from the ones you get >>> with "function over different paths", because the locus of >>> control moves from the mostly-trusted browser to the mostly not >>> trusted downloaded application. >> >> FWIW, I share Ted's concerns about origins. Regardless of what >> approaches are taken, the effects of this need to be well >> understood I think. I don't object to the WG being chartered though >> but would suggest that there be a mention in the charter that the >> WG needs to document the consequences, including the dangers, of >> caching and re-use of DNS answers for likely implementations. > > The charter already points to the document that the work will be > based on, which has that topic in it, because *you* pointed it out in > the earlier discussion of the document. As co-author on the document, > I assure you we will not remove it, if for no other reason than I > wouldn't want to face your wrath again in IETF Last Call. :-) "Wrath" has to count a pretty speedy escalation in terms, and especially when I'm so shy and retiring about saying what I think:-) I'm also confident that that security considerations will cover this topic in some sense. I'm not confident that I understand the relevant consequences at this point in time, so ISTM useful to mention it in the charter as that might help later. > >> I'd be even happier if the resulting spec had a bunch of MUST NOT >> statements about that, if such statements were likely to be >> effective. > > All MUST NOTs are only partially effective, but we use them anyway > to help good implementers. Agreed. And sometimes we use them to describe damaging things bad implementers might otherwise be likely to do without realising the downsides. > If you have some proposed MUST NOTs on > the current document, by all means send them in. Probably better in a different thread, but I think there is scope for a MUST NOT (re-)use answers outside the same origin, but I've no doubt there are subtleties there that the WG would need to figure out and that'd make this sentence a bad idea to include on it's own. S. > > --Paul Hoffman >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature