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

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:18 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  But then, if the user has not opted in such system, it would be nice if
> the ISP refrained from interfering with name resolution for that user. How
> do we achieve those two goals in practice?
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
Even that starting point is not accurate or correct, IMHO, at least for
scope, or whether/how any given DoH implementation interacts with the
user(s).

Jason was suggesting that there are (or at least may be) multiple levels of
ISP and/or Enterprise and/or controlled (parental) stuff; those might nest
with no "naked" root (unfiltered) depending on the particular ISP, or
mandated legal thing, or "public" offering doing anything questionable.

Notwithstanding any desire to have users use DoH to arbitrary endpoints, in
some environments (enterprises) or regulatory environments (western
countries which have different restrictions on legal contracts and user
acceptance stuff.

This means that it is NOT the case that EVERY potential deployment
environment is going to be compatible with a DoH client that bypasses any
controls that might be present, without violating laws, contracts, or other
controlling limitations.

The starting place for the conversation needs to acknowledge this, and
accommodate it. It is entirely possible that a DoH client that doesn't do a
minimum level of getting user acknowledgement before violating policies,
laws, or contracts, might itself be illegal in some jurisdictions
(jurisdictions that could include some US states, some western countries,
some larger entities like EU, etc.).

This is not to say it isn't going to be the case that users can't "force"
some kind of DoH-like thing, only that it needs to be under some kind of
affirmative control, where a user makes an informed decision with some kind
of explicit understanding/acknowledgement.

It probably would be advisable for DoH implementations to NOT make that
explicit acknowledgement externally visible to e.g. authoritarian regimes,
but that is stuff to discuss/explore, i.e. it's an open question.

It would be very helpful for moving the conversation forward if the DoH
proponents could start with acknowledging this set of legal/contractual
issues, and that any kind of DoH client that just automatically does stuff
that bypasses any mechanisms to restrict DNS, likely isn't known to be
compliant with all laws in all jurisdiction (and probably would be
problematic, at a minimum).

Brian