> Il 09/07/2020 08:53 tirumal reddy <kond...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Regarding section 4, in DPRIVE (on draft bcp-op) we have > recently been told that the IETF does not recommend in its best practices > anything which is not strictly technical (in that case, it was about > communicating to users the jurisdiction under which DNS resolution is > provided): > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/rJ7R3OBUyySfEyJgwhoxs1DNGuc/ > > > > So I would assume that that section is out of scope as well, and I > > would remove it. > > > > > > My understanding is the "jurisdiction" is out of scope but not RPS (see > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-12#section-6) > Sure, those three points were agreed with Alissa as the scope of any statement that might be described in the best practice:
o Relates _only_ to matters around to the technical operation of DNS privacy services, and not on any other matters. o Does not attempt to offer an exhaustive list for the contents of an RPS. o Is not intended to form the basis of any legal/compliance documentation. So I would take that as guidance here as well: I don't think we can say whether it should contain regulatory information, redress measures etc. (though that would indeed be advisable). Also, in Italy the ISP, when blocking websites by court order, is required to show a page which is exactly defined by law and by the public authority that "seized" the website (e.g. https://www.startmag.it/wp-content/uploads/butac.png ) - it is not allowed to change it in any way. I would expect that to happen in other countries as well. -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com mailto:vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
