Re: [Add] I-D Action: draft-btw-add-home-00.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi Ian, Vittorio,

What you are both saying is exactly why handling user consent is a more general point, not specific to this draft.

That is why we went with the following in the draft:

   The use of DoH/DoT also depends on the user's policies.  For example,

   the user may indicate his/her consent to use (or not) the locally-

   discovered DoH/DoT server or request to review human-readable privacy

   policy information of a selected DNS server to assess whether that

   DNS server performs DNS-based content filtering (e.g.,

   [I-D.reddy-dprive-dprive-privacy-policy<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-btw-add-home-03#ref-I-D.reddy-dprive-dprive-privacy-policy>]).  The DNS client is assumed

   to adhere to these policies.  This document does not make any

   assumption about the structure of such policies nor mandates specific

   requirements.  Such policies and their handling is out of scope.

Cheers,
Med

De : Add [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Ian Maddison
Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2020 12:08
À : Vittorio Bertola; ADD Mailing list
Objet : Re: [Add] I-D Action: draft-btw-add-home-00.txt

Hi Vittorio,

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, at 11:18, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

On the other hand, if the consent is tied to the degree of channel security that is offered, then indeed the switch of channel might affect the user's desire to consent. Still, if we can assume that DoT/DoH towards the same operator always offers more security than Do53, and that the user has already consented to Do53, then we can also assume that the user will be happy with DoT/DoH as well.

That sounds fine until you consider the probable DNS performance degradation of DoT/DoH compared to Do53. Perhaps users prefer to give prior consent to anything that affects their performance. Apologies if this isn't currently in scope, but nonetheless I feel it would be wise to also consider DNS performance aspects here.