Re: [Doh] ISP position re. hardcoded DoH servers

JW λ John Woodworth <jw@pcthink.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jw@pcthink.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED67C1201F1 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UGKCWDrXgFHP for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC891201D1 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (atl4qobmail03pod6.registeredsite.com [10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x6PMJokP030192 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:19:51 -0400
Message-Id: <201907252219.x6PMJokP030192@atl4mhob07.registeredsite.com>
Received: (qmail 20119 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jul 2019 22:19:50 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.164.135.99
X-Authenticated-UID: jw@pcthink.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.254.153.242?) (jw@pcthink.com@207.164.135.99) by 0 with ESMTPA; 25 Jul 2019 22:19:50 -0000
SavedFromEmail: jw@pcthink.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:19:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20190725201212.GY258193@eidolon.nox.tf>
Importance: normal
From: =?UTF-8?Q?JW_=CE=BB_John_Woodworth?= <jw@pcthink.com>
To: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Cc: jw@pcthink.com, doh@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.samsung.android.email_2795714866355590"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/8D8YjL7B6N8nAPwDOWnSCC7K35c>
Subject: Re: [Doh] ISP position re. hardcoded DoH servers
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:19:57 -0000

-------- Original message --------From: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>; > Ok, let's get into a discussion about whether it's philosophical> or not...> But, first, just for completeness sake, it's been pointed out to me> that browser vendors tried to clarify that they're putting up a user> choice and there is FUD involved here.  I'm perfectly happy if> browsers offer the users the choice to use some DoH server.> That's informed consent.Agreed.I don't personally have an issue with implementing a new transport mechanism and for the most part the encryption.Actually, as a _user_ I love the encryption aspect of DoT and DoH.  My _personal_ preference would be a local service à la nsswitch to offer some consistency around my UX.However, as that same user, I don't want the proverbial rug pulled out from under me.  Applications that do the unexpected are generally considered buggy or malware (sometimes both?).  In other words -- when it comes to moving my cheese, ask, or for the love of everything sacred -- don't do.2¢,User John