On 11/27/19, 9:29 AM, "dns-privacy on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> For instance, if your access provider has a lying resolver I just wanted to take a moment to note that choosing to use the term 'lying' when describing resolver behavior is unnecessarily negative and seems designed to be intentionally divisive. This does not IMO contribute to a productive discussion and exchange of views at the IETF. As has been long demonstrated here and in DNSOP, not all DNS modification can be considered 'lying' - given that lying obviously implies it is a negative thing that is counter to user preferences. For example, an opt-in parental control service that modifies responses is not a negative use case from the perspective of that user/parent. Similarly, a DNS modification in an enterprise that blocks malware C2 FQDNs is also from the enterprise's perspective a good thing. It seems a better approach is to simply use a neutral term and call this DNS modification. Whether that is good or bad will depend on the particular use case or situation or other factors. Thanks Jason _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
