> Il 27 settembre 2019 17:54 Sara Dickinson <[email protected]> ha scritto:
>
> I hope the changes address most of your concerns - please review and let me
> know.
I went through the changes, and I like them - you did a really good job in
capturing my comments and more generally the recent development of the
discussion on privacy and DNS, doing it in a balanced way (I can tell because I
would have used more pointy language in a couple of places :-) ). So thanks for
this.
The only note I still have is on 3.5.1.3. The revised text seems to say that
blocking remote resolvers is either damaging or neutral for privacy, but in
some cases it could actually be beneficial. So we could add at the end of the
first paragraph:
"In some cases, networks might block access to remote resolvers for security
reasons, for example to cripple malware and bots or to prevent data
exfiltration methods that use encrypted DNS communications as transport; in
these cases, the block would actually increase the protection of the user's
privacy."
Apart from this, there might be a bit of beautifying to do here and there in
3.5.1.1 (things like "application-specific" in place of "application specific"
or "the user's full knowledge" in place of "the users full knowledge"... sorry
for being grammar-nazi). I can do more proofreading separately if you want.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email protected]
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
