On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Phillip Hallam-Baker: > > > For a heavily trafficked resolver, the resolver-authoritative > > interaction can be addressed with caching and by pre-fetching the > > bulk of the requests. But this approach does not work so well for > > the lightly trafficked resolver and especially not a local resolver > > deployed in a home network. > > Does encryption really make a difference there? In most > jurisdictions, home networks use recursive resolvers whose operators > are required by law to provide cleartext copies to local authorities. > Encryption won't change that. > The protocol is premised on the user or administrator choosing their own resolver. If the resolver service is provisioned by a jurisdiction outside the scope of the legal requirements that you claim, it is null and void. But first, cite actual legal authority because I don't believe your interpretation of the law is remotely correct. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
