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

Paul Vixie <> Wed, 13 March 2019 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B081130EA3; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tkdc9cqD3Lz1; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBD9212798E; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B41F3892C6; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:48:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <>
Cc: Christian Huitema <>, "" <>, "" <>, Stephen Farrell <>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:48:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4082161.Lf4rHVndz0@linux-9daj>
Organization: Vixie Freehold
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <2356055.DoC3vY7yXE@linux-9daj> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:48:46 -0000

On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 02:59:07 UTC Christian Huitema wrote:
> On 3/12/2019 2:11 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >> I don't see why, based on your argument, your concerns
> >> trump his.
> >> 
> >> Can you explain?
> > 
> > he's trying to achieve a political aim using technology. that is not the
> > purpose for which the internet engineering task force, or the internet
> > itself, was convened. it is not why our employers pay our travel costs.
> > and it is not why the rest of the world trusts our outputs.
> Sorry, but no. I am vying for network transparency, ...

sir, that is a political position.

> and I believe that
> if filtering is to be enforced, it should be controlled by the user.

sir, that is a political position.

> You
> are claiming that safety mandates giving the network operator full
> control over name resolution. ...

i am speaking not of the platonic perfect form of safety, of which any 
particular kind of safety is a mere imperfect reflection, but rather of a 
*very* particular kind of safety, that of the networks i operate. it is for 
me, and me alone, which is to say not for you, to say what kind of safety my 
network needs, or should have, or will have.

> Both of these positions come from specific
> visions about how the network should work. Neither is more a political
> goal than the other.

your stated goals are entirely political, resting in no way on economics, 
psychology, science, metaphysics, epistemology, or even engineering.