On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:46:34PM +0000,
 Sara Dickinson <s...@sinodun.com> wrote 
 a message of 192 lines which said:

> Not sure, are you just suggesting we reference the terminology draft
> or we switch to using ‘public resolver’ (which strictly speaking
> isn’t defined there, just discussed)?

I suggest we use "public resolver", keeping "open resolver" for the
accidental ones. It seems well adopted.

> > > A .onion [RFC7686] service endpoint
> > 
> > I don't understand. You mean a public privacy-wise DNS resolver should
> > be a Tor entry node as well?
> 
> No, just a service offered via Tor. Maybe ‘endpoint’ is the
> confusion here and could be removed.

I still don't understand exactly what the DNS-privacy public resolver
must offer here.

_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to