Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] [Doh] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

Bob Harold <> Thu, 04 April 2019 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597E212069D for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PqWJdDkaSfmG for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB9112069A for <>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t4so2222897ljc.2 for <>; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 07:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zHMIxj/sP3LP2cheyZD0HQoJaQwhEnq/mKt5pz2WD7A=; b=KdJPeHm0V+Saumm4b3BISftOHxBUcg2f9zUzvu4uCzJaE0AQsAUJYtNhr2I0/DEKpf 3imSWipffaC1qRyxQIkiNYQXHmag4CMCaP/g511K/2HEGEQPYya1yn+EaGJaghFdmZPN jPOs3pk7X2UyDmQlU9Nz3rHrRUT9mrCYIVTcO9Pac1PUWU+NBrcpllZjOwzLqYhnghjs HzkPd+SV305hOrjWa57q5HLaXHbP2AZbt7ksh6G2fz53hX0J072Pdc0OBrI5tdftSVGk Ud0W5tnnjqaFM6nOtO5eCBL/gKdcxrJgNIrauG8kV0mkY1ADptgWYD03EE73YY5T3uTl jHaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zHMIxj/sP3LP2cheyZD0HQoJaQwhEnq/mKt5pz2WD7A=; b=PH9xOkl/y3dLOwjDh09H1P4nttv0srtUbX7oQw+U5dvvf7WWEdhITJf6Ukk4kw2zab fkc5R/2b0CcaA1nKkNT0bG+mBexYOqPuZyTjgwV4pN42AFWqhgAFUxiG1tOLkTyfTAbb W0Z5SLa1xmU/g+NC/IKaT6OWVhDM5rEKsjvEVMbtT0BkOrVLoW4UEl05d9Av25wfPaAt iWMLaAqOwBzR9/3MRiGlOxmZG0hml0LfeZr02UdEP//5uKeupJPPzXNeTEV3XKllpfrp RLF3pyUSdKyAhApjFyGo8xfgbBZI00V+L5oCtvm3O1KSI+xH6nkkdrWDia/0Xy7Vj67Q ey9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW980ooBAO4uuRI+zU455JlMEtSYNjEENdqhzFjhmt0EnYzDYkq oFFzhyqrnBNtNKI1WmP67QAHc66YTN0RW3VdY18AXA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxfpHG4QO+7vKFGcH7oQMBvIoobRgoFsgoTEUAj+kF+6dpR4FUb0lmDkZlM2J3qDIy2GwHGDv6xmLE1xwiKRA4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:81da:: with SMTP id s26mr3838602ljg.86.1554386493622; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 07:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <4935758.NkxX2Kjbm0@linux-9daj> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Bob Harold <>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:01:21 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Paul Vixie <>, Vittorio Bertola <>, Christian Huitema <>, IETF DNSOP WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cbd7030585b4ceac"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] [Doh] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:01:39 -0000

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 6:34 PM Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> Paul, it might be worth asking whether you believe that isps should be
> selling eyeballs. If you think they should, then your argument makes sense.
> It’s the same argument isps give for charging me for service and then
> charging Netflix for access to me.
> If you don’t agree with this model, then your argument that whoever built
> the network has the right to dictate terms is inconsistent.

If you buy service from a network that subsidizes the price of your
connection by selling your data, that is your choice.   You could use a VPN
or buy a network service (even a dedicated line) for a higher price that
does not sell your data.  Their network, their rules, but you choose the

Bob Harold

> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 15:26 Paul Vixie <> wrote:
>> i had to think about this for quite a long time. i've trimmed the cc
>> headers.
>> Christian Huitema wrote on 2019-03-12 20:39:
>> >
>> > On 3/12/2019 7:56 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >
>> > The mirror image of that statement is, "when did intermediaries get
>> > a mandate to filter content?"
>> it was rarely a mandate, though various governments have made it one for
>> various intermediaries. let me answer a different question, when did
>> intermediaries gain the right or responsibility or both for filtering
>> content? because that answer is simple: when they started building and
>> operating it, investing in it, and either profiting or losing from it.
>> their networks, their rules. which is only potentially unfair when they
>> are also monopolies, in which case their end systems and edge networks
>> have no alternatives. the law may want to recognize when a monopoly
>> exists and set some minimums and maximums on intermediary operator
>> rights and responsibilities. but that's not an architecture question.
>> > ... The internet architecture assumes full connectivity. At some
>> > point, people deployed middle-boxes and filtered content because
>> > they could.
>> as seems natural, since the internet architecture is neither viral nor
>> communist, and anyone who connects a network to that network-of-networks
>> called "the internet" has always treated all policy as local, since all
>> responsibility for its emissions and uptime was theirs and only theirs.
>> > They did not exactly try to get a mandate, or obtain consensus that
>> > this was proper.
>> no consensus was needed. if someone broke your rules, you stopped them
>> or disconnected them. that was true for the NSFnet AUP, and it's true of
>> every network's AUP today, and every corporate or family network's policy.
>> > Technologies like DoH force the discussion in the open. Why do you
>> > think you can filter content? Who made you king?
>> i think that's hyperbole. i am at best a prince, and only of the
>> territory i personally pay to build and connect, and only in the eyes of
>> people who use my network. anyone who dislikes my rules can search for
>> some other internet-connected network whose rules they like better. this
>> is not a dictatorship, but certainly is a coalition of the willing.
>> --
>> P Vixie