On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:10 PM Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 18 Mar 2021, at 15:42, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Instead, cases where clients are particularly concerned about revealing > client IP and identity to very large public resolvers benefit more from > this. > > There’s a much easier and far quicker solution for that problem. Clients > who have those concerns can (and should be able to) point their queries > elsewhere. > > How about an RFC that says “don't use Quad-X if you’re concerned about > revealing your IP address or identity to those services”? > I disagree with your assumption that clients/users are only concerned about particular resolvers. I think many of the users/clients involved here are concerned about privacy exposure to any and all resolvers, and thus changing resolvers is not a solution.
> > I’m sceptical about Oblivious DNS because the use case and problem > statement isn’t compelling enough, at least to me. > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
