Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Preventing user behavior tracking seems like a pretty valid use case.
>>
>
> it would be, if it was cheap to block. that is, on my network, under my
> rules, user behavior tracking may be my policy. a user who wants to avoid
> that tracking should ask for non-tracking. if they won't ask, or if i say
> no, then the default should be non-functionality.
>

Well, the success of the HTTP Do Not Track header field certainly supports
your argument here...


> the DOH people are trying to ram something down the throats of network
> operators worldwide, and i'm gagging on it. a deep breath won't help.


this has nothing to do with what i use. for me it's about employees, family
> members, and visitors. for turkey and china and others, it's about national
> law. the ietf has not been knowingly and deliberately hostile to local
> network policy before now. this is a sea change. it will not end here, and
> it will escalate.


I think HTTPS was pretty hostile to local network policy.   Indeed, there
was a big argument about that in the TLS working group over the past few
IETFs.   If you don't want people to use DoH, there's an easy solution,
which you already need to use regardless: you have to MiTM their HTTTPS
traffic.   If you don't agree that you have to MiTM their HTTPS traffic to
achieve what you want, then I think we are not arguing about the same thing.