> Il 13 marzo 2019 alle 3.20 Raymond Burkholder <r...@oneunified.net> ha > scritto: > > It appears to me that there is considerable support for DoH, meaning > there is support for non-interference.
I think there is support within the IETF, but "non-interference" on DNS has lots of implications at the legal, business, policy and political levels, which implies that there are many more stakeholders than the technical community, and these stakeholders have never been asked what they think of this. This is part of the discussion that needs to happen to get to broad consensus on DoH deployment models, as opposed to a technical arms race to enable/stop DoH between the Web people on one side and the security, ISP and government people on the other. > How would the requirements of each group be recognized? The simplest > would be to not proceed with DoH. My draft attempts exactly to promote a discussion to find the conditions (if any exist) under which DoH could be deployed broadly without making any stakeholder group [too] unhappy. Regards, -- Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange vittorio.bert...@open-xchange.com Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
