[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast files "recommended practices" draft RFC with IETF for DNS Redirection

["David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>]

Mr. Ulevitch - I suspect "spin":

1. Please explain the odd meaning of the word "safer" implied by your statement.  If the FTC were to explore whether there is a true "safety" benefit for people, please explain the risk. implied by getting an error message from a browser that the site named does not exist?

2. And for that matter, I am not aware of 12 million people opting "in" to OpenDNS via a legally meaningful customer choice selection where the "benefit" of having names resolved to non-existent sites is explained.  It would be misleading to make the statement you make below if they were "slammed" by ISPs or other companies without their explicit consent beforehand.  Your case would be reasonable if indeed you have records of 12 million individual names who will indeed agree that they chose to use OpenDNS as a matter of free positive action.  I doubt you can produce an auditable list of such names that one can contact to verify your claim, but feel free to produce one.

On 07/09/2009 07:12 PM, David Ulevitch wrote:

I can't speak for the ISPs motivations, but you're right that they are probably driven by profits (though I'd argue they are going to be getting short-term profits and the expense of long-term unhappy customers) but I will point out that there are lots of legitimate reasons people want to do DNS error redirection.  12 million + people have opted to use the services of my company, OpenDNS, to make their internet safer and more reliable.  That's why I was willing to lend a few thoughts to the IETF document.  

-David

On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:06 PM, David P. Reed wrote:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00

I note that this draft RFC proposes practices that routinely return
*valid* responses to erroneous DNS lookups, and encourage an opt-out
policy rather than an opt-in policy.

The sole justification is that the default way that a browser such as
Firefox or IE would present an error message is inadequate for users,
thus an ISP should take matters into its own hands to fix that cosmetic
problem, rather than asking the browser vendors to do a better job!

And the side effects identified do not include the impact on http
requests not generated by typing into web browsers, but instead used as
part of "web 2.0" service apis and other uses of port 80 that do not
arise from end users typing into the url bar of their browser.

One might ask why the sole justification given  for this misuse of DNS
to patch an application weakness is the only one?

And even more so, why this is such an urgent problem that ISPs must fix
it via a flawed and risky solution, rather than the makers of browsers
fixing it in the most logical place?

The potential to disrupt non web-browser features is noted in the "draft
RFC", but instead of a balanced analysis of benefits and costs to other
uses, the draft is silent.  In fact, the draft refers to this as
"enhanced" functionality.

I expect the wiser heads at the IETF to prevail....  This is a solution
to a non-existent "problem", with bad side effects.

While this is not exactly the same as directing a misdialed phone call
to call a Caribbean phone company number with the consequent  and
unavoidable billing charge to the user, it seems very close to that sort
of thing - a surprise to all application developers, and a modification
to the expected semantics of directory lookup.

  [ I agree with David.  If IETF goes along with this proposal, there
    is something very rotten in Denmark.  What's really amusing about
    the referenced document though is that for all its verbiage in
    which it tries to establish a "need" for such DNS redirect
    services -- mostly focused on highly questionable assumptions
    about malware protection and legal mandates -- it fails to
    mention the primary reason that ISPs implement DNS redirects.

    This is of course use of such DNS diversion services to create
    profit centers, by shunting users to ISP-affiliated search
    engines and affililated ad delivery services, attemping to
    monetize users' interactions with the broader Internet by
    capturing low-level transactional communications to which the ISP
    has privileged access.

        -- Lauren Weinstein
           NNSquad Moderator ]