On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:46:34PM +0000, Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
