On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:43 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> > (dropping dprive list at WG chair request) > > Hiya, > > On 13/03/2019 20:29, Brian Dickson wrote: > > 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.). > > I almost agreed with you that people need to ack others' > priorities. But the above means I can't agree with your > mail as "might be illegal" is vastly overstated, there > being no relevant difference between DoT and DoH clients > in this respect. You are correct, on the difference issue. This is about the base requirements, even if they are not different between DoH and DoT. And I agree, both DoH and DoT would need to meet the same set of requirements wrt to contracts, laws, informed users, and everything. I don't believe I am overstating the issue, at least in some places. E.g. I am not aware of any place where an end user can modify an EULA, sign it, and have that legally binding. Doing DoH/DoT in any such environment where the Ts & Cs prohibit their use, would at least be a contract violation. Things like DMCA and its ilk might raise the software to the level of "illegal" rather than just a contract violation by a user. > Such overstatement doesn't help and merely > makes it more likely that some of the reasonable points > you make will just get lost in the noise (IMO anyway). > > The same goes for talk of "wars" btw. > > Yeah, that's not one term I have used, but I agree. Brian
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
