Re: [DNSOP] extension of DoH to authoritative servers

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Ted Lemon wrote on 2019-02-12 12:07:
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Paul Vixie <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> actually, there are other choices.
> 
> I may have failed to communicate.   What I mean is that you said that 
> you can detect all nefarious traffic, but you can’t detect DoH, which to 
> you is nefarious.   What I’m saying is that there’s no such distinction, 
> or at least if there is at present, it is a temporary situation.

i realize that the political tacticians who designed DoH are searching 
for a world in which network operators have no control plane choices. i 
think they're proceeding from the mistaken belief that all control is 
evil, and that all network operators are equally deserving of 
disintermediation. and other mistaken beliefs as well, which i won't 
enumerate.

> 
> Of course you have choices about what to do about this; my point is not 
> to suggest that you do not.
> 

whether the situation turns out to be temporary or not is important to 
your final argument. probably you shouldn't go there so soon. spammers 
also believe that network operators should not be able to control their 
own networks, and malware authors, and botnet creators, and IoT 
innovators, and surveillance capitalists. none of those matters seem 
like they are, or will ever be, settled. so, none are "temporary".

my network, my rules. anyone who acts otherwise will be treated by me as 
an adversary, even folks like mozilla who have been fellow travelers for 
decades now, if they continue to pursue unblockable endpoint technology.

-- 
P Vixie