https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-104-dprive/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Moin!
On 13 Mar 2019, at 20:48, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 12, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
please do not relegate discussions about the loss of operator control
over the
RDNS control plane
Although it’s certainly true that DNS is used as a control plane by
many operators, there is
Hiya,
On 14/03/2019 14:41, Ralf Weber wrote:
> the DoH protocol caused some application providers to experiment with
> switching resolution per default away from OS and the local network provider
I wasn't aware that some application provider was doing this
as their default (assuming that's what
On Mar 14, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Well as you said it is something that will not get consensus at the IETF, so
> why work on that? However as you said these RDNS control planes exist in real
> life and even if there is no IETF standard for it, the IETF should consider
> actual
Moin!
On 14 Mar 2019, at 10:53, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 14/03/2019 14:41, Ralf Weber wrote:
the DoH protocol caused some application providers to experiment with
switching resolution per default away from OS and the local network
provider
I wasn't aware that some application provider was
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:21 PM manu tman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have captured in a draft the mechanism I used during IETF 103 hackathon
> and which is available aan experimental module in knot-resolver[0]. I was
> taken short with time before cit-off date, but I hope this will better
> explain
Paul, I'm trying to understand your scenario.
If you ran your own DoH server in your network (doing RDNS or whatnot), and
the DoH server is distributed to clients via DHCP + a protocol upgrade
mechanism, would that address the concerns you are listing?
Vinicius Fortuna
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at
In the last couple of days there has been a lot of activity concerning DNS over
HTTPS (DoH) - Hoffman and Alibaba presentations at ICANN and IETF drafts:
draft-reid-doh-operator/draft-livingood-doh-implementation-risks-issues/draft-betola-bcp-doh-clients.
These discussions have focused on DoH
> On Mar 14, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Henderson, Karl
> wrote:
> Is there any compelling reason at this point to be considering DoH for
> recursive resolver-to-authoritative name server communications?
Nope, because there’s already a DoT for recursive-to-authoritative draft.
