IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: My longer list of questions [from partial distribution at the MIC]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 01 August 2019 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B541201EE for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQnfyo0CIEf9 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BAA51201EB for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 13:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5B9380BE for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F7B08EF for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:26:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1908011359300.7741@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <ybl8ssna2en.fsf@wu.hardakers.net> <477F76EA-3945-4D77-BEAE-FFCC01B21FF8@nbcuni.com> <64bcfc51-6f3d-ae24-4de5-d0eb89975c66@cs.tcd.ie> <B559AB20-47D9-41F2-B520-3989B6F4D92F@nbcuni.com> <539D6F9D-137C-4F68-A8DE-EA3DFAF4D827@huitema.net> <EBF15E49-80C7-474D-9CDA-446AD8639874@frobbit.se> <CABcZeBNAWHYvRHaaWE=yfVijwjubZ_tua6Y7_zQcwe7t81sfBw@mail.gmail.com> <LO2P265MB1327E4613BBDBD2BDF0B3640C2DD0@LO2P265MB1327.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CABcZeBONcb4h97MiO_PbjPOAYM31S7OTaPFCai=5ukOyAbt-yQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907311453570.16521@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAFWeb9+kj9J7puywYXzVPBQ+LP+gkvhoqe1sLdZT_h84fheR-w@mail.gmail.com> <4E72E017-96D7-481D-BCF7-89B944A257BC@fl1ger.de> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1907311611090.29601@bofh.nohats.ca> <8DEC22D6-818C-475A-A360-09F05875F5C2@fl1ger.de> <b3629c89-cdd3-9e4e-b1e9-336e7c96e84b@cs.tcd.ie> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1908011217400.7741@uplift.swm.pp.se> <d8a31889-89cc-c856-5820-0b7f2783c23a@cs.tcd.ie> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1908011359300.7741@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 16:26:27 -0400
Message-ID: <1837.1564691187@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/0sv6dfKvnNtUu7zWSZ-ffSMpP-8>
Subject: Re: [Add] [EXTERNAL] Re: My longer list of questions [from partial distribution at the MIC]
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 20:26:31 -0000

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
    > One thing that would be good to get agreement on is that there are
    > valid use-cases for both using the system resolver by default and using
    > a (remote, non-ISP) DoH resolver by default, and my estimation is that
    > these are close to equally large/important.

As a user, I'd sometimes like it on a tab-by-tab basis!
Certainly "Incognito" browsing might have a different policy.
{I'll also say if you are a dissident trying to hide/blend-in in a hostile
environment, the last thing you want is all your Do53 traffic to do is disappear.}

    > If we can agree on that and
    > the discussion stops being on whose use-case is most important and
    > instead being on how to solve this problem, then the discussion might
    > be more fruitful and productive.

Agreed.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email