[I am not a big fan of the idea, because I see it as useful mostly for
big public resolvers and I am not a big fan of big public resolvers.]
Section 1:
1) "The motivation for a user to configure such a Centralized Resolver
varies but is usually because of some enhanced experience, such as
greater
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:53:41PM +,
Edward Lewis wrote
a message of 127 lines which said:
> The draft isn't justifying the existence or use of centralized
> resolvers, just establishing they exist. Digressing into such a
> discussion would be a distraction.
I disagree. The draft is not
On 4/1/15, 10:34, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote:
>connect." OK, but the draft should also mentions the cons of
>centralized resolvers such as the privacy risks and the security risks
>in the first kilometer (which is many kilometers long).
The draft isn't justifying the existence or use of central
On 01Apr15, Stephane Bortzmeyer allegedly wrote:
> [I am not a big fan of the idea, because I see it as useful mostly for
> big public resolvers and I am not a big fan of big public resolvers.]
It's also useful for big "private" resolvers too. Such as those run by
ISPs, mobile phone networks, larg
On Apr 1, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 1) "The motivation for a user to configure such a Centralized Resolver
> varies but is usually because of some enhanced experience, such as
> greater cache security or applying policies regarding where users may
> connect." OK, but the draft
