Re: [Doh] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

[Jim Reid <[e-mail]>]

On 10 Mar 2019, at 08:01, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Operators can also be required to perform DNS blocking and filtering
>> or rewriting for legal reasons
> 
> Sure, but is it IETF's job to make it easier? RFC 2804 and 7754 would
> be good references here.

The draft is not asking the IETF to do that Stephane. And it's a *huge* mistake to make that assumption. All the I-D is doing here is documenting one of the issues that will arise in operator networks once DoH is widely deployed. There are other issues. As the draft explains.

Personally speaking I think on DNS blocking and filtering, the train left the station a long, long time ago. It isn't coming back and the IETF is highly unlikely to define a protocol for DNS blocking and filtering. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue in certain environments. Or that widespread uptake of DoH is going to complicate matters for those who do have to do these things.

> I'm very glad that people consider the importance of personal data
> protection, and the useful role of the GDPR in it. But I fail to see
> why it's specific to DoH.

Well, this is the DoH WG. Where else should we consider the role of GDPR for that protocol and its usage? ;-) GDPR is a huge, sprawling issue that cannot possibly be addressed in one over-arching framework for esch IETF protocol. So IMO it's best to approach that on a procotol-by-protpcol (or WG-by-WG) basis. YMMV.