Re: [DNSOP] definitions of "public DNS Service"

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, 22 May 2020 21:59:11 UTC Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > On May 22, 2020, at 3:38 AM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > these services aren't public in any way, and should not be described as
> > public. they are operated privately for private purposes
> 
> True of Google and Cloudflare, not true of Quad9.
> 
> > a county park is public. anycast RDNS is a business.
> 
> Again, true of Google and Cloudflare, but not true of Quad9.

there may be a distinction, but not a difference. ibm and pch and the other 
backers of quad9, and the security industry partners who participate, have 
solid personal reasons, just as google and cloudflare and opendns do, for 
running an open recursive name service. open recursion is novel concept, only 
25 years or so old, and the internet functioned fine without it, and as shown 
by the PiHole project and others, the internet can still function fine without 
it. as much as the interested parties have bent the narrative toward their 
interests, open recursion remains a private service run for private reasons, 
and the name "public" would be misleading in the extreme.

-- 
Paul