On Thu 2014-10-23 08:45:45 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> Which in my view means that the recursive has to be a trusted service and
> the notion of promiscuous recursive resolver use has to be stamped out.

I'm not convinced that your conclusion follows from your premise here,
Phil.

I agree with your premise that a recursive resolver needs to be a
trusted service.

But i don't see why a trusted recursive resolver can't be "promiscuous"
(though it's possible that i'm not understanding the term in the way you
mean it).

For example, anonymity-friendly service provider nologs.example might
offer a recursive resolver for anyone who wants to use it, while
identifying themselves to the public with cryptographically-strong
credentials.

The trust relationship for a recursive resolver is directional, not
symmetric.

    --dkg

Attachment: pgpLMWseiIlfI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to