> Il 20/02/2026 02:31 CET Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> ha
> scritto:
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > On 20 Feb 2026, at 12:16 pm, Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Why the draft name change? I thought this looked familiar and then
> > re-found draft-nottingham-public-resolver-errors. The diff between
> > that and this is fairly small:
>
> As discussed in the interim, the old name was no longer applicable, and
> potentially confusing.
However, the new name reopens the controversy on whether each and every
instance of DNS filtering can be labeled "censorship". In the past, we reached
consensus by having three EDE codes for filtering, of which only one is labeled
"censored"; the draft applies to all three of them. Moreover, the text of the
draft only uses the word "censored" once, in section 6, as one of two options
("filtered or censored"). For the rest, the text always talks about "DNS
filtering".
So I really do not understand why now we need to use "censorship" in the title.
I would suggest to call the document "DNS Filtering Transparency" which IMHO is
more general and more appropriate.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
[email protected]
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
