[as112-ops] Advice requested on a proposal to delegate .local to AS112

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:22:15PM +0200,
 Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> > 2) The IETF is worried about the privacy risks of "transmitting"
> > these queries to random AS112 operators.
> 
> Just curious, who is more concerned about queries under .LOCAL being
> sent to AS112 operators than they are about queries for RFC1918 nets
> being sent to the same place?

See
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9SMSgU2P84dWjqzfquqdkufh7oQ>
for an example. But there is a difference. In the case of RFC 1918,
the QNAME is not very revealing (1.1.168.192.in-addr.arpa), in the
case of .local, it is more sensitive (joe-abley-iphone.local).

Funny, while I searched, I was reminded it is an old issue, see
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BjeEfR5rbPmyXWdlJtklt3m8WH8>

The whole 2007 (!) discussion "AS112 for TLDs" may interest you:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/62zF7e_2o0W3SmWXfmk-nBQDDDY>