On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > i realize that the political tacticians who designed DoH are searching for a > world in which network operators have no control plane choices. i think > they're proceeding from the mistaken belief that all control is evil, and > that all network operators are equally deserving of disintermediation. and > other mistaken beliefs as well, which i won't enumerate.
I still feel like we are talking past each other. What I am saying is that there are a set of different mechanisms, all of which use port 443, in order to avoid being subjected to your control plane. DoH is in principle one of these. We do not disagree about this, as far as I can tell. What I think we differ on is the idea that, in the absence of these “political tacticians” of whom you speak, that this problem would not exist. What I am trying to point out is that the situation with DoH is a symptom of the problem you are not talking about, not the only instance of it. You seem to be asserting that DoH is special among all other misuses of port 443. But you haven’t explained why it is special. This is what I was trying to tease out with my initial response to what you said.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
