The case you describe is "consensual", because you can change it. A non-consensual case would be the one where all traffic to port 53 at anything other than the operator's resolver is blocked.
A -- Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums. On Nov 28, 2014, at 16:22, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >>> with search pages. Something like default vs. non-default or opt-in vs. >>> opt-out >>> would describe it better. >> >> I don't think "default policy-implementing resolver" makes any sense. While >> "opt-in policy-implementing resolver" does make sense, "opt-out >> policy-implementing resolver" does not. I'm not as concerned about the >> rathole as you are, but I certainly don't want to use terms that make no >> sense. > > I meant default as in it's the one configured by default for a provider's > users, e.g., by DHCP. > > The ISPs I know of that have policy resolvers to rewrite NXDOMAIN configure > them by default, but provide some way for users to opt out so they get the > real result instead. I don't particularly care what the wording is so long > as it describes what actually happens rather than how we think the users > ought to feel. > > Regards, > John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
