On 3/12/2019 9:25 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Il 13 marzo 2019 alle 4.39 Christian Huitema <[email protected]> ha >> scritto: >> >> On 3/12/2019 7:56 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>> The reaction I got from some policy people when I mentioned this kind of >>> arguments going on here is "when did the IETF get the mandate to decide for >>> everyone that content filtering by intermediaries is always bad? This is >>> matter for competition / telco / human rights legislation, and will vary >>> country by country." >> The mirror image of that statement is, "when did intermediaries get a >> mandate to filter content?" > When a regularly elected government, having sovereignty over them and their > users, told them that they can / should / must do it. > > Note that I don't particularly like this practice (I'm currently busy in the > battle against Article 13 in the EU), I'm just trying to sort out everyone's > role in this discussion.
The legal mandate is really a best effort mandate, as in "if you provide name resolution, you should not resolve name X, Y and Z". It is a constraint on the way a service provider provides a specific service. It is not a grant of monopoly, that only the connectivity provider should provide name resolution. It could perhaps be interpreted to say that DoH providers, subject to the same laws as ISP, should perform the same filtering. But that's a different question. -- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
