Hi,
> On 24 Mar 2019, at 23:25, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
>
>> The blocking of DoT to a given provider should be interpreted as an explicit
>> policy. Users should be informed
>> that they may, and very likely will, be violating someone’s policy, if they
>> choose to use DoH in that
>> circumstance, and that they may be violating laws by doing so, and should
>> only do so if they are willing to
>> accept that risk.
>
> Again, this is the network operator centric view. There are many hostile
> networks that would block DoT just so that they could monetize (legally
> or illegally!) from my harvested DNS data. I can assure you the warning
> you want to write to users would be very different from the warning I
> would want to give those users. Which is why the IETF doesn't do
> banners towards endusers.
Putting aside legal language, but Brian’s basic notion is that the user can
make an informed decision and the network can express its policies, with which
the user can agree or not agree (and go elsewhere). Having the protocol
elements to permit this sort of agreement is its own tussle.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
